From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Jul 1 05:12:56 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:12:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ben Noach and mitzvas kiddush hashem Message-ID: <043501d64fa0$f4d21a60$de764f20$@touchlogic.com> I believe a few issues ago someone asked if benei noach are obligated in mitzvas kiddush hashem (to be moser nefesh to avoid their 7 mitzvos, as we are obligated wrt murder/arayos/AZ) See toldos Noah at length on this subject. Pg. 247-270 Email offline if you want scans.. Are they commanded in mitzvas kiddush hashem (no - rambam) Are they allowed to be moser nefesh for mitzvas kiddush hashem (machlokes) Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid killing someone (machlokes) Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid abortion. q etc From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 1 09:40:03 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 16:40:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux Message-ID: I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? 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 mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Jul 1 15:31:10 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:31:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status Message-ID: <052501d64ff7$52b1d1b0$f8157510$@touchlogic.com> https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/kosher-appliances/467/shattered-dre ams/ ... What is induction cooking? Induction cooking is a revolutionary energy efficient way of cooking without heat. How do you cook without heat? The answer is with electro-magnetic energy. The conventional burner is replaced with a coil of tightly wound copper wire under the glass cooktop. Turning on the "burner" sends electro-magnetic energy through the coil. If you placed your hand on the coil area, you would feel nothing. If you placed an aluminum pan on the same area you would still feel nothing. However, by placing an iron skillet or a pot with an iron core or magnetized stainless steel on the cooktop, the magnetized skillet completes the magnetic connection and the electro-magnetic field of energy transfers directly into the pan. This causes the iron molecules to move very rapidly, giving off heat. In turn, the cookware cooks the food. Lifting the pan off of the cooktop breaks the magnetic connection, and you will no longer be cooking. The cooktop will be heated by the "magnetic" pot or pan, but it does not get hot from the coil. Consequently, any spill onto the ceramic cooktop surface will be a result of an irui kli rishon, spillage from a hot pot, not a heated cooktop as you would have in conventional cooking. Hence, if one would want to kasher the cooktop, it could be accomplished by a lesser means of kasherization, irui kli rishon.10 Although induction cooking offers a koshering benefit, the cooktop cannot be used on Shabbos or Yom Yov because the cooking connection is made once the pot is put onto the coil area. Similarly, one would not be able to remove the pot from the cooktop on Shabbos or Yom Tov because one would be "disconnecting" the magnetic field by removing the pot. While the ability to kasher an induction cooktop is an advantage, the disadvantage of not being able to use it on Shabbos or Yom Tov makes this cooktop impractical, unless one has more than one cooktop in the kitchen (an induction for during the week, and a non-induction for Shabbos and Yom Tov). As with every new advent of technology, one balabusta's dream is another balabusta's nightmare. From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 03:43:44 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:43:44 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 3:00 PM Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was > forbidden. So at least for Ashkenazim this whole issue should not > exist. Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut. > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for the gezeira seem to apply. Even for Sephardim, since the SA is meikel in seif 4 in the case of servants in a beit yisrael. Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 15:43:22 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:43:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:27:08AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > RMB writes: >> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and that >> the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / minhag she'eino >> chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done. > So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b: > Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, v'Rav > Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: > Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? People practice like REbY. Why? R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example of BY chalaq R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah I presume you would say something like: R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: it'r universal pesaq R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something entirely different? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. Author: Widen Your Tent - Rachel Levin Varnhagen - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From cantorwolberg at cox.net Thu Jul 2 05:57:12 2020 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:57:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Something to Ponder Message-ID: To paraphrase this profound statement below by R? Yitzchok from the Talmud R.H. (16b) which is quite timely: Any year that begins without the straightforward, clear and unequivocal tekiya, will sadly end with the wavering sound of defeat ? the terua. ??"? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 05:12:53 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:12:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: . In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this is the one I want to ask about.) > The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation > of Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana > (danger). Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the > Mishnah, shuls were located outside of the cities where it was > not safe to be alone at night. The Rabbis were concerned that > people who came late to shul might be left alone while finishing > to daven. To give latecomers a chance to catch up and finish > davening with everyone else, Chazal extended the davening by > adding Mei'ein Sheva. I've heard this same explanation many times from many sources, but I've never understood it. Mei'ein Sheva is shorter than a single page in most siddurim - does its presence really lengthen the service significantly? If the shuls were outside the cities, it must have taken a certain amount of time to get home, and even to get to the outskirts of the city. Were the latecomers unable to catch up to their neighbors? Were the on-time people unwilling to stay in shul for the one or two minutes needed for the latecomers to finish? If this problem was sufficiently significant for Chazal to enact this measure, there were probably several latecomers every week, not just a single latecomer now and then. If so, couldn't the latecomers simply wait for each other, even if the on-time people rushed to get home? There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better? Thank you in advance. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 07:14:04 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:14:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200702141404.GB25994@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 01:43:44PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was > > forbidden.... > > exist. Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut. > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and > pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh" > it includes any form of cooking by heat... Or, any form of cooking by fire, whether broiling, roasting or boiling or frying in water or oil that are heated by fire. For an example that predates the taqaah, solar cooking. Does a rishon deal with the question of eating an egg cooked in the sand that was placed there by a non-Jew? And, as I opened in my first response, it's not just the Rama; "al ha'eish" and variants are common in the discussion. I don't think it's an Ashkenazi thing, just because the SA doesn't use the idiom himself. > That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a > Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for > the gezeira seem to apply.... The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for refu'ah beShabbos. Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking via fire. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, http://www.aishdas.org/asp eventually it will rise to the top. Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 2 07:13:40 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:13:40 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> > RMB wrote: >> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and >> that the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / >> minhag she'eino chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done. And I wrote: > So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b: > Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, > v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: > Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? <> Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim. If you were having a shiur about the halacha of meat, it would be remiss of you to mention the one, and not the other. And if you were giving a shiur to both Ashkenazim and Sephardim, I hope you would say - CYLOR [the L of course standing for "local"], rather than saying "we pasken" one way or the other. Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel, you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like. There are other opinions, and they might have been brought, but the end of the shiur would say - follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov, whereas I would hope that would not be what you would say regarding BY chalaq. <> But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>. Glatt is a tricky one, because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin. And the question then comes down to, why is it that someone keeps glatt, is it because he wants to be machmir for those who think it is really following the BY's iqur hadin, or is it because that is what his community does. If he is just doing it because he lives with other Hungarians so does it, but he really thinks the Rema is right, and it is a chumra that the people came up with (which you can argue it is, particularly because glatt is not the same as BY chalak) then it is a minhag garua. But if the community does it because they are really holding like the BY (at least to an extent), despite the Rema, I would say it is a minhag chashuv. I thought the better example of what you were saying is milchigs on Shavuos, which has no Rav psak behind it, but which has Rabbinic approval in the form of the Rema. That shows the distinction between what I thought you were arguing and what I am much more clearly. Ie that according to you minhag chashuv has no Rabbinic psak source, it is something the people came up with, but it is a religious practice that the Rabbis then approved, whereas I am saying that for a minhag chashuv to be a minhag chashuv, there needs to be a rabbinic psak that the people are relying on, even if other communities hold differently. And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, and the community then followed. It is not some religious idea, like milchigs on Shavuos, that the community came up with independently and then was approved. If R' Eliezer or Rabbi Meir had never paskened the way they did, then the minhag would never have arisen. That, I thought, was the fundamental distinction between what I am saying and you are saying. That I was saying to be a minhag chashuv, it has to be originally Rav psak derived, that people then followed. Whereas I understood you as saying that a psak is a psak, and different from a minhag chashuv, which had to be people derived, ie bottom up, albeit with Rav approval post fact. And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag? <> But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good thing. Especially as we discussing what are needed for an eruv (a halachic device), or whether the kohanim should duchan during Mincha and nei'ila of Yom Kippur. These aren't things like going around with baskets on your head, or squeezing fruit. They are religious acts. <> Yes. << R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq>> Yes, although I prefer to phrase it the psak that the people as a community [I prefer that to the term "local" as it sounds limited, while communities can be large or small] have adopted following Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, or Rabbi Meir [out of the options available], making it the minhag chashuv. <> I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in psak. To the point where their psak is not a valid psak. The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. Regarding R' Yochanan I believe I am following Rashi. Both Rashi, Tosfos and the Rosh refer us to Ta'anis 26b where it explains that if it is the halacha, you teach it "b'pirka" - ie you learn it out in the public halachic discussions. If it is minhag, you don't teach it b'pirka, but if someone comes to you and asks, you posken that way, and where it says nahagu - one does not rule this way, just "I avid, avid, v'lo mehadrinan lei". And Rashi in Ta'anis, says: U'man d'amar nahagu [ie Rabbi Yochanan] - mashma: hen nohagu me'alehen, aval aino ikar. Uminhag mashmar - Torat minhag yesh b'davar, uminhag kosher hu. The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher. That rather sounds like either it is a minhag taus [which in Yerushalmi speak is aino minhag, such as not working all motzei shabbas, even though this is clearly a religious practice] or a norm that has halachic impact. But it should not be dignified with the name minhag. However over in Eruvin Rashi (quoted approvingly there by Tosfos and the Rosh) uses the language - aval i avide lo machinan byadayhu - ie if they do it, we don't protest. That sounds much more like the minhagim that the Tosfos and the Rosh were discussing in Pesachim as being minhag lo chasuv (ie tolerated, and not gone against in front of, ie you are not to rule publically in front of them, but you don't actually have to keep), which is contrasted to a minhag chasuv. Tosfos in Brachos 52b (d"h nahagu ha'am) draws a different distinction between the situation over in Ta'anis and in Eruvin (and elsewhere, such as Rosh Hashana) and the situation in Brachos where Rabbi Yochanan again says nahagu ha'am [like Beis Hillel in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda - the subject matter being whether we say the blessing over the spices before or after the blessing over the flame in havdala]. Because we [and I think we all in fact, as Tosfos says] l'chatchila go according to this R' Yochanan that we make the blessing over the spices before the flame, and yet it would seem from Eruvin 62b (as understood by Ta'anis) that l'chatchila one shouldn't follow where it says nahagu ha'am, just that where the people are so accustomed, we don't make them go back if they did it wrong (so in the case of the havdala, one would think one should really bless the flame first, and then the spices, just if people did it the other way around, we wouldn't make them repeat havdala). And Tosfos' answer there in Brochos is that over in Eruvin, the nahagu ha'am is contrasted to someone saying "halacha" which means "halacha l'chatchila u'morin ken" and therefore when somebody else says nahagu they are meaning bideved, "aval hacha yachol l'hios d'ain kan ele nahagu greida". Note however that in the case in Brachos everybody agrees the halacha is like Beis Hillel (versus Beis Shammai). The issue at stake is how to understand Beis Hillel - like Rabbi Yehuda or like Rabbi Meir. And while Rabbi Meir would seem to be the stam mishna, we follow Rabbi Yehuda. That feels to me less "al pi Talmud chacham" - it is more how the relevant Talmud Chacham understood another set of talmudei chachamim. Whereas the case in Eruvin 62b is regarding what R' Eliezer ben Yaa'kov himself held (regarding non-Jews assuring a courtyard for eruv purposes, if there was only one Jew) versus Rabbi Meir, or in Eruvin 72 (do you need a shituf and an eruv), or Ta'anis (whether on Yom Kippur the Kohanim should bless at Mincha and ne'ila) ie is a matter of direct psak versus psak. With the sense that according to Rabbi Yochanan the psak in question is plain wrong, and knowledgeable people should ignore it. I think you could thus alternatively argue that Brachos is a classic minhag garua that happened to accord with how Rabbi Yehuda understood Beis Hillel, which in the absence of a clear psak either way, we follow the order the people decided upon, for their own reasons, whereas in the other cases, it is a minhag taus, that the psak is clearly wrong in halachic terms, but because there is this da'as yachid position out there, the hachamim were not prepared, in bideved situations, to make people go back and redo. Or you can say that actually over in Brachos Rabbi Yochanan, while using the term nahagu ha'am, given that it was not used in contrast to minhag k', meant really to say minhag k' - making it a minhag chashuv. Or maybe in fact we just ignore Rabbi Yochanan's expression. And what we are actually following is the ma'ase shehaya of Rava. In any event, for me the key fact is the Rav Huna defines minhag explicitly as going according to a psak, something you, I believe, said couldn't happen. How you understand Rabbi Yochanan, who specifically does not use the term minhag, just nagu ha'am for something which (leaving aside the situation in Brachos) he disapproves of, is secondary. -Micha Regards Chana From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 07:36:54 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:36:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:13:40PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote: >> Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, >> v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: >> Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? >> <> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example >> of BY chalaq > Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is not > what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim... You totally lost me. Neither Shemu'el's nor R Yehudah's "we" are Askenazim or Separadim. ... > Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we > pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel, > you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben > Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like... We are in agreement. >> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt > But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common religious > practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>... Which is exactly what I have R Huna saying here. The actual halakhah is lenient, the hamon am in practice are nohagim to be stringent like REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the stringency. It's not din, but it's a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval -- a minhag chashuv. > Glatt is a tricky one, because of > the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin... Still, Hungarians are following it as minhag, and are more lenient than the Sepharadi half of the world BECAUSE it is "just" minhag. To them. The issue you raise is a distraction from explaining the gemara. > And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely > and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi > Meir, and the community then followed... > And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as > expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' > Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario, > and yet it has the definition of minhag? After the rabbinate said you didn't have to. So in that sense it is "bottom up". The masses chose to do something extrahalachic. >> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah > But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a > minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good > thing.... By "common" hanhagah tovah I meant in contrast to any kind of minhag. Something many pious people do, not the masses. Like learning all night on Shavuos in Lithuania circa 1890. But in principle, even if R Huna meant everyone was doing it: Why would hanhagah tovah mean that the rabbis endorsed it? And I think you then agree with this "in princple, when you write: >> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He >> can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi >> talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something >> entirely different? > I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact > something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a > non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in > certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are > accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The point being here, is > that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in > psak. To the point where their psak is not a valid psak. The problem > being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and > have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. R Yochanan can say something is a hanhagah tovah and not a pesaq nor even an actual minhag. > The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice > with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher... Which according to me is what "minhag garua" means. Whereas you're saying that R Yochanan refers to it as a hanhagah, but is not calling it a minhag garua. Despite the common shoresh. So we agree on w to understand this machloqes, we disagree with what to call each position. To me, Shemu'el and R Yehudah, by talking about pesaq aren't talking about minhag chashuv. To you there are. R Huna is definitely talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq. Which to me is a minhag chashuv and to you a minhag garua. And R Yochanan is talking about a practies that doesn't rise up to that level. Which to me is a minhag garua and to you not even that much. It's all just in the labels, but that changes how we read the rishonim. That is why I ignored all the gemaras you cited that don't use the /nhg/ shoresh. The rest of your post argues for something we agree about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. http://www.aishdas.org/asp All that is left to us is Author: Widen Your Tent to be as human as possible while we are here. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From zev at sero.name Thu Jul 2 08:08:02 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 11:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking > and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul > shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking > with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the food gets hot of its own accord. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 2 11:51:19 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:51:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <003001d650a1$c6ab7350$540259f0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: >> <> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example >> of BY chalaq > Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is > not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim... <> You wrote the words "parallel to my example of BT chalaq" - see above. I responded to *your* example of BY chalaq - because you said that "R' Yehuda amar Shemuel: that's what we pasken - is parallel to my example of BY chalaq" I totally agree that neither Shemuel's nor R' Yehuda's "we" are Ashenazim or Sephardim - but *you* said that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is parallel to your example of BY chalaq (which you contrasted to glatt), and BY chalaq versus glatt is about Ashkenazim and Sephardim. If you agree that BY chalaq is not a parallel, then there is no need for this discussion. But because of the parallel that you brought, I couldn't (and can't) see how you can make the statement below (which you say you agree with): > Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is > what we pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda > amar Shemuel, you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow > R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like... If we agree that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is *not* parallel to BY chalaq, then we can agree we understand R'Yehuda amar Shmuel the same. >> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like >> glatt > But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common > religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>... <> Err, ReBY is actually the lenient one (he says you need two Jews living in a chatzer to assur it for carrying). Rabbi Meir is the stringent one (he says you only need one Jew and the chatzer is assur). So transposing your explanation, but with the correct way round, do you agree that, "the actual halacha is strict, the hamon am are in practice nohagim to be lenient like REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the leniency. It is not din, but it is a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval - a minhag chasuv"? Now do you think that if the people did not have ReBY to rely on, but had just come up with this by themselves, against the halacha of Rabbi Meir, Rav Huna would be so tolerant? If yes, then why did he phrase it as minhag k'RebY? Why didn't he say that if there is only one Jew in the courtyard, the minhag is to carry (because it doesn't' matter whether ReBY said so or not)? But if it *does* matter that ReBY said so, then you need more than just the people coming up with this idea of only one Jew living on the chatzer themselves. You need ReBY, or some other Rav, to have said so, followed by community acceptance to have it become a minhag. > Glatt is a tricky one, > because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin... > And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as > expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' > Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated > scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag? <> There were two different piskei halacha out there. ReBY (the lenient one) and R' Meir (the stringent one). R' Yehuda amar Shmuel states emphatically that ReBY is right, Halachically, and that the halacha is like him. R' Huna appears not to agree, otherwise he would have said what R' Yehuda amar Shemuel said. Rather, he accepts that the people having made the choice to go for the lenient position as a valid minhag. It is partially bottom up in that the people have made a choice between Psak A and Psak B, and decided to follow Psak A, in this case the lenient psak, but I do not believe they have decided to do something extrahalachic independent of there being two piskei halacha out there. It is the same scenario as following R' Yossi for milk and chicken, or Rabbi Eliezer for cutting the wood to make the knife to do the bris on shabbas. Or moving a lit candle on shabbas. Or working or not working erev pesach morning. Each case is the same underlying scenario: there were a range of piskei halacha out there. And certain communities, or sometimes the whole people, decided to follow one psak over another (even though in pure halachic terms that isn't necessarily the halacha). That is what makes it a minhag chasuv, as articulated by the Ri and the Rosh, ie that it is al pi Talmud chacham, and not just something the people came up with on their own, even where the people can provide religious justification. RMB: >> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah Chana: > But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a > minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a > good thing.... <> *Hanhaga tova* is *your* language, not mine. I assume you mean R' Yochanan here, not R' Huna, because you are the one who applied the words hanhaga tova to R' Yochanan in a previous post. I don't at all think that R' Yochanan is describing what he thinks of as a "hanhaga tova". I think (and I believe Rashi and Tosfos agree with me) that in this context if you have to use the term hanhaga, then he believes he is describing a hanhaga ra. <> No idea what you mean here. >> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? >> He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY >> is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to >> mine or something entirely different? > I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact > something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a > non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish > people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things > people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The > point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is > actually flat out wrong in psak. To the point where their psak is not > a valid psak. The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the > people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. <> He could, but in the context, where he is dealing with a situation where there is a lenient psak and a stringent psak, and where the people are going according to the lenient psak, he is clearly not saying that. He is saying it wrong what the people are doing, but if you come across somebody who has done it, they either don't have to reverse what they have done, or you don't need to create a fuss (as they have what he considers a da'as yachid to rely on). Depending on which Rashi you follow (and presumably Rashi/Tosfos in Eruvin had a different girsa in Ta'anis, given that they don't quote "not reversing", but "not protesting"). > The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this > practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher... <> Hanhaga was, as mentioned, your language, not mine. I said that one interpretation of Rabbi Yochanan is a minhag garua - that is if you hold that it is something that one shouldn't protest. Just like all the other cases in Pesachim where the rabbis said not to protest the minhagim. However if it is something one should protest, just that one doesn't make people do things again (ie our girsa in Ta'anis), then that appears to be less than a minhag garua (more like a minhag taus). <> No, I don't think so. <> No, I never said that, and I don't think so. In the case of Shmuel and R Yehuda we are talking about psak. <> No. To me what R' Huna is talking about is also minhag chashuv. I didn't think you agreed with that, but am fine if you do. If you agree that this is a minhag chashuv, then it would seem that what we disagree about is whether or not Rav Huna is "talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq". You say definitely, ie "definitely talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq". I don't think this is right at all. I believe Rav Huna is talking about a common practice performed by the people *in light of ReBY's psak* Which is precisely why he phrases it as "minhag k'ReBY". Because the fact that there was a psak from ReBY is critical to his understanding. It is what makes it a minhag choshuv (and not a minhag garua). Just as the Ri and the Rosh and the Shach say that the definition of a minhag chasuv is that it is "al pi talmid chacham". This is "al pi talmid chacham" - the psak of ReBY, which is key to what drove the people. No ReBY, no such minhag. And R' Huna is expressing this clearly by linking the minhag with the psak of ReBY. <> Not quite. If we didn't have the girsa we do in Ta'anis, ie we had the girsa that Rashi and Tosfos in Eruvin seem to have had, I would say this was a minhag garua. Problem is, our girsa in Ta'anis doesn't just say, we don't protest, but we don't make them do over again or go back (given that in Ta'anis we are talking about kohanim duchaning at nei'lah, presumably that means we don't have the Shatz resay the non duchaning language, after the kohanim have ostensibly duchened, or make the kohanim sit down once they have said the bracha). That suggests that we do in fact protest if we can get to them before they get started duchening. I don't think something that the chachamim were prepared to protest, even if the view they are protesting is based on the psak of a Talmud Chacham, can be considered any kind of minhag, except perhaps a minhag taus. <> I agree it is all in the labels, but I thought there was something more fundamental here. My understanding of your position was that if the people were following a particular psak (such as the people following the psak of ReBY or the people following the psak of Rabbi Yehuda not to work on the morning of erev pesach), that could not be called minhag. Rathein your view minhag, including minhag choshuv, had to be something that was generated by the people themselves, like milchigs on Shavuos, ie completely bottom up. That is why I could not see how you characterised what R' Huna said, of minhag k'ReBY as minhag, as it didn't seem to fit. Whereas my understanding of a minhag chashuv was that it needed to have at its root a psak of a Rav, with the bottom up aspect of it being the people's, or a community of people's, decision to take on that particular psak, even in the face of disagreement from other Rabbonim. That seems to fit perfectly with Rav Huna's statement of minhag k'ReBY. I thus understand a completely bottom up minhag as falling within the category of minhag garua (or just minhag)- although even within that category, there are those that have strong rabbinic approval, and those that have weak to non-existent rabbinic approval (depending on how garua they are). But like your minhag chashuv, my minhag garua does have to relate to something religious/halachic, even though at some point one reaches a situation where the rabbis come out full force against what the people are doing. The reason I am so vague about the line between minhag garua and minhag taus, is that this line seems very difficult to define, Ie at what point does a minhag which is very garua tip into a minhag taus seems hard for me to pinpoint (I have been looking at two cases of very dodgy minhagim, namely women in states of tuma'ah - both involving, inter alia, women not going to shul - one during their periods, and one in the period after giving birth, and the attitudes towards them couldn't be more different. The one is reasonably accepted as something of an acceptable minhag, with some rabbinic blessing, even though the origins are difficult, and it is clear it is solely women generated, while the other gets the full minhag taus, must be stamped out, treatment, at least amongst some. Even though on first glance they would seem to be directly parallel). While you, I thought given that you characterised what I called minhag garua as being minhag chasuv, understood minhag garua as being something done even by non-Jews that had halachic impact, which didn't seem to me to be what was being discussed in the gemora in Pesachim at any point, and hence not the subject of the Ri and Rosh's distinction there. -Micha Regards Chana From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 14:38:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 17:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: free public transport on Shabbos/Yomtov In-Reply-To: <004401d644dc$61126e20$23374a60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004401d644dc$61126e20$23374a60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200702213852.GD25994@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 08:20:35PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > There are a fair number of shops, but there are a fair number of houses too > (and some blocks of flats, definitely majority Jewish). We know people who > live in a couple of the houses right on Golders Green road... A balebatishe comment: It needn't be people right on the road, though. Bus lines are routed to serve neighborhoods. Even if it were a street entirely of shops and other commercial enterprises, a route would take into account any residential areas that are in easy walking distance to any stops. Which is certainly true of what I remember from Golder's Green Road. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless http://www.aishdas.org/asp he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. Author: Widen Your Tent Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 15:23:32 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:23:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 00:29 Zev Sero via Avodah, wrote: > On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking > > and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul > > shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking > > with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. > > Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. > The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the > food gets hot of its own accord. > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and metal heated by a magnetic field? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 15:45:36 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:45:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <20200702141404.GB25994@aishdas.org> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Simon Montagu Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 01:44 Subject: Re: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status To: Micha Berger On Thu, 2 Jul 2020, 17:14 Micha Berger, wrote: > > The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't > apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for > refu'ah beShabbos. > > Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the > gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their > motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking > via fir > Lo p'log is not a universal. There are plenty of cases where hazal and the pos'kim explore in which scenarios gezeirot are or are not relevant (as opposed to implementation details in what is essentially the same situation, such as pianos or violins on shabbat). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 15:58:34 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:58:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais haVaad] Police Protection: Are Officers Liable for Injuries They Inflict? Message-ID: <20200702225834.GA17037@aishdas.org> I think this topic has crossed all of our minds lately. >From https://www.baishavaad.org/police-protection-are-officers-liable-for-injuries-they-inflict/ Tir'u baTov! -Micha The Bais HaVaad Halacha Center Police Protection: Are Officers Liable for Injuries They Inflict? Adapted from the writings of Dayan Yitzhak Grossman July 2, 2020 On June 12, Atlanta Police Department officers Garrett Rolfe and Devin Brosnan were attempting to handcuff Rayshard Brooks and arrest him for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Brooks wrestled with the officers, seized Brosnan's Taser, and attempted to flee. With Rolfe pursuing him, Brooks turned and fired the Taser toward Rolfe. Rolfe then shot at Brooks three times, striking him twice in the back and killing him. Rolfe was subsequently charged with felony murder and ten other offenses. In considering Rolfe's possible culpability for killing Brooks, the first issue is whether the shooting was justified as self-defense. We do not consider here this specific question, but only the general question of the liability of a duly authorized agent of the state for the use of force resulting in injury or death. Agents of the court In the Mishnah, Abba Sha'ul rules that a father who strikes his son, a teacher who disciplines his student, and an agent of the court, who accidentally kill, are not subject to the law of exile (galus).[1] The Tosefta rules similarly with regard to civil liability for nonlethal injury: The father, the teacher, and the agent of the court are all exempt, unless the force used is "more than is appropriate," in which case they are liable.[2] An alternate formulation appears elsewhere in the Tosefta: The agent is exempt if he injures inadvertently (b'shogeg), but liable if he injures deliberately (b'meizid), "out of concern for tikun olam."[3] R' Shimon ben Tzemach Duran explains that these two formulations are equivalent: If the force used is "appropriate" but nevertheless results in injury, the agent is considered shogeg, but if it is "more than is appropriate," he is considered meizid. He also explains that the liability in the case of meizid is in accordance with the normal laws of torts, and the concern for tikun olam is the rationale for the exemption of shogeg, i.e., Chazal absolved a shogeg from liability despite the principle of adam muad l'olam, by which people are usually held liable for torts committed b'shogeg.[4] It would seem that according to this approach, "shogeg" here has its general meaning of an act that while inadvertent, nevertheless has an element of negligence to it, and so would engender liability were it not for the concern for tikun olam, since it would seem absurd for an agent of the court who carried out his duty entirely properly to be liable for its consequences (were it not for tikun olam), any more than the court itself and its agents would be liable as tortfeasors for the very imposition of punishment such as lashes or execution upon a miscreant![5] In apparent contradiction to the assumption of the Tosefta that an agent of the court is not authorized to use more force than necessary to carry out his duty stands a ruling of Rabbeinu Yerucham ben Meshulam, accepted by some poskim, that an agent of the court who strikes the body or damages the property of a recalcitrant person is exempt even if he was able to accomplish his goal by other means.[6] It seems that this opinion understands that the availability of nonviolent means does not automatically render the use of violence "more than is appropriate." Thus in Rabbeinu Yerucham's case, although alternative nonviolent means were available, once the agent chose to utilize violence, the level of force he used was the minimum necessary to accomplish his goal, whereas in the case of the Tosefta, the level of force utilized was gratuitously high. Alternatively, some contemporary writers consider it self-evident that Rabbeinu Yerucham concedes that the authorities have no right to use "excessive" and "unreasonable" force relative to the goal of preserving the rule of law.[7] Perhaps, then, when the Tosefta assigns liability where the force used was "more than is appropriate," it is referring to just such "excessive" and "unreasonable" force. In any event, other poskim disagree with Rabbeinu Yerucham's ruling and maintain that an agent of the court is only exempt from liability for the use of force if he had no other means to achieve his goal.[8] The exemption of an agent of the court only applies provided force was used in order to compel compliance with the court's directives, but not when motivated by anger.[9] Some contemporary writers assume that a police officer would have the same status as the "agent of the court" discussed by Chazal and would therefore be exempt from liability insofar as his use of force was appropriate. __________________________________________________________________ [1]Makkos 2:2. Cf. Rambam and Ra'avad Hilchos Rotzeiach Ushmiras Hanefesh 5:6, and Bnei V'lechem Yehudah, Bnei Shmuel, Gur Aryeh, Hamei'ir La'aretz, Kruv Mimshach, Ma'asei Rokeach, Mirkeves Hamishneh, Ein Tarshish, and Shufrei D'Yaakov ibid.; Shu"t Shevus Yaakov cheilek 3 siman 140; R. Yehuda Zoldan, Tzidkas Yehuda V'Yisrael, siman 6 os 1; R. Moshe Taragin, Shliach Bais Din Sheharag Beshogeg. One version of the Tosefta contains a position contrary to that of Abba Sha'ul; see Or Sameiach Hilchos Rotzeiach 5:6 and Tzidkas Yehuda V'Yisrael ibid. [2]Tosefta Bava Kama 9:3. [3]Ibid. Gittin 3:13. [4]Shu"t Tashbatz cheilek 3 siman 82. [5]This is certainly true according to the poskim that maintain that the principle of adam muad l'olam does not apply to oness gamur (see Tosafos Bava Kama 27b s.v. uShmuel amar; Shulchan Aruch C.M. 378:1-3 and Shach ibid. s.k. 1). [6]Sefer Maysharim Nesiv 31 cheilek 2 p. 92 second column, cited by Sema C.M. siman 8 s.k. 25 and Ba'er Heitev ibid. s.k. 8. [7]Adv. Yaakov Shapiro and Dr. Michael Vigoda, Shimush B'choach al Yedei Hamishtarah, n. 33. [8]Toras Chaim Bava Kama end of daf 28; Shevus Yaakov cheilek 1 siman 180, cited in Pis'chei Teshuvah ibid. s.k. 6; Sha'ar Mishpat ibid. s.k. 2; Aruch Hashulchan ibid. se'if 6; Yeshuos Yisrael ibid. Ein Mishpat s.k. 2 and Chukas Hamishpat s.k. 6. Erech Shai ibid. se'if 5 concludes that the matter is a s'feika d'dina. Cf. Halacha Pesukah ibid. p. 86 n. 214. [9]Shu"t Ra'anach (Yerushalayim 5720) siman 111 p. 475. Cf. Shevus Ya'akov cheilek 3 end of siman 140 and Shimush B'choach al Yedei Hamishtarah. From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 16:02:21 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:02:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200702230221.GA7250@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 01:23:32AM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: >> Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. >> The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the >> food gets hot of its own accord. > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and > metal heated by a magnetic field? I believe Zev is saying that the induction cooker doesn't cause any metal to glow. However, when you cook on an old-school electric stove, the coil will glow. And glowing is included in "eish". (I'm not sure about the last part. I think it would depend on whether causing a gachales shel mateches is bishul or havarah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. http://www.aishdas.org/asp Life is about creating yourself. Author: Widen Your Tent - George Bernard Shaw - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From zev at sero.name Thu Jul 2 17:03:56 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 20:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: On 2/7/20 6:23 pm, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > Glowing hot metal is included in "fire".? Here there is no fire at all. > The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the > food gets hot of its own accord. > > > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and > metal heated by a magnetic field? The pot or pan doesn't get nearly hot enough to qualify as fire. It doesn't have to, since it's heating the food directly, rather than heating a pot sitting on top of it, which will then heat the food it contains. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Thu Jul 2 17:02:12 2020 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 00:02:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Realities of Times Past (Was: Latecomers to shul on Friday night) Message-ID: R?Akiva Miller asks (38/54) a typically thoughtful question about adding Magen Avot on Friday night. The reasoning and realities are difficult to understand, he notes, and so he asks, ?There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better?? I don?t have any answers for him but I have similar questions about reasons given for other changes in halacha. For example, we don?t blow shofar on RH that falls on Shabbat (thus missing out on a Biblical commandment) because of three maybes: (a) maybe someone will be blowing who doesn?t know how to do do properly, (b) maybe that will happen on a Shabbat RH, and (c) maybe that person will carry the shofar in a reshut harabim to an expert for instruction. Well, how often would that occur? Was this common in those days? And if so, why? It?s not common today for shofar blowers to go to experts on RH to give them instruction. And equally difficult fir me to understand, wasn?t there some other way to prevent the triple maybe sin of carrying other than making all the Jewish people for generations on end miss out on a once a year biblical commandment.? Was society so different that this was really an otherwise unmanageable problem at the time the ruling was put into effect? To paraphrase Akiva, there?s something that I'm missing about the realities of that time; can anyone explain the reasoning better? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From marty.bluke at gmail.com Fri Jul 3 00:13:36 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 10:13:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop Message-ID: R? Simon Montagu asked: > That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a > Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for > the gezeira seem to apply.... This would seem to be a classic case of davar shebminyan tzorich minyan acher lhatiro which we don?t have. There are many gezeras that we observe today even though the reason behind the gezera no longer applies. For example, taking medicine on shabbos is prohibited because you may grind the ingredients. In today?s world of pills the reason no longer applies yet most poskim still prohibit taking pills for something like a headache. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:17:50 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 17:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200706211750.GA10250@aishdas.org> Someone pointed me to https://www.torahbase.org/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%A0%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D See section 6. R' Asher Weid isn't comfortable have a nakhri cook for you by microwave. Something I had thought was pretty commonly accepted. In this case, he allws, but only because the situation that required getting a housekeeper to cook is a she'as hadechaq, and because hiring a Jewish housekeeper would be a hotza'ah merubah. Only adding the lack of aish as a yeish le'ayein and is willing to use it as an additional "chazi le'itztarufei". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he http://www.aishdas.org/asp brought an offering. But to bring an offering, Author: Widen Your Tent you must know where to slaughter and what - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 01:31:54 2020 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:31:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Realities of Times Past (Was: Latecomers to shul on Friday night) Message-ID: Fellow Ovedim have (IIRC at the behest of RAM who asked the question) been wondering why Tefillat Me'eyn Sheva' is said on Friday evenings. RJK particularly cited RAM: > "The reasoning and realities are difficult to understand," he notes, " > and so," he asks: "There's something that I'm missing about the > realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they > davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain > the story better?" There may be a clue in an article by Jacob Mann. Jacob Mann was, as far as I can reconstruct, a Pzsworsker Chassid who loved Judaism and learning, but upon landing the USA possibly tragically aligned himself with the wrong crowd. But this is just a reconstruction. For all I know, him publishing a bunch of articles in the Reform"Hebrew Union College Annual" may have been because it was in his eyes the most widespread scholarly publication, one that would afford him the most exposure. Interestingly, he insisted on transliterating Hebrew into Ashkenazi pronunciation, and HUCA agreed. At any rate, he was a pretty interesting historian of liturgy and may have been on to certain things correctly. In an article entitled Changes in the Divine Service of the Synagogue due to Persecution, he brings evidence for several periods of anti Jewish persecutions in which certain prayers or practices were prohibited, giving rise to creative solutions. Though he does not deal with Me'eyn Sheva' (as far as I remember), the setting seems to work well. Perhaps Me'eyn Sheva came from a time when Jews had to pray outside the settlements, because they were praying in hiding, and thus had to watch out for each other's safety. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 03:59:50 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:59:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status Message-ID: Rav Hershel Schachter has a fascinating essay in his Sefer about when we say lo plug by gezeros and when not. It has been a while but I believe he says that gezeros are all lo plug except if the reason was written into the nusach of the gezera. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 13:16:24 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 16:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200707201624.GE25868@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 01:59:50PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Rav Hershel Schachter has a fascinating essay in his Sefer about when we > say lo plug by gezeros and when not. It has been a while but I believe he > says that gezeros are all lo plug except if the reason was written into the > nusach of the gezera. The problem is, that determination is often non-trivial to make. Where is the end-quote -- is the explanation part of the quote of the wording of the gezeira, or the gemara's explanation of its purpose stated and stated after the quote? We discussed this idea many years ago, when I proposed this was the root of the machloqes about basar kafui. Very related is that it is also sometimes unclear when something is a pesaq in existing law, and when a gezeira. If it's a pesaq, then applicability is built in whether or not it's stated. Pesaqim only hold if the situation is materially the same. What the gemara says about putting out a burning house on Shabbos wouldn't apply to a wood-frame house in an urban or most suburban settings because the risk to life is simply different. Like the Peri Chadash vs the Chasam Sofer about chalav yisrael; the PC says CY is a pesaq, so he has little problem saying that CY is moot when there is other disincentive to adulterating the milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness http://www.aishdas.org/asp which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost Author: Widen Your Tent again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Jul 7 14:44:42 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 21:44:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Risk Reward Message-ID: <1594171681704.0f3bd39e3250de82@aishdas.org> A note I wrote To a pulpit rabbi: I strongly support a recent discussion concerning return to synagogue. I do have to say that there's one point that I deeply disagree on. Maybe it's a matter of nuance that cannot be communicated in trying times to the general public. I don't believe that flattening the curve has no halachic import. In fact as a community we are always making this kind of trade off. If not why wouldn't we spend every dollar we have on improving public health. The answer per R' Schachter and R' Weiss is that's the way the world operates. Bottom line risk reward tradeoffs are often very difficult. Personally I'd prefer we be more open and honest about them and have public discussion but realize that may not be practical So what is the halachic philosophy of risk/reward? perhaps a starting point The cohain gadol and the alternates for himself or wife on Yom Kippur? Kt Joel Rich From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 19:15:59 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 22:15:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Francis Collins on Science and Religion Message-ID: <20200708021559.GA27334@aishdas.org> An interview with Dr. Francis Collins (an Obama appointee now most famous for being Dr. Anthony Fauci's boss). https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/anthony-faucis-boss-on-why-things-could-be-much-better-soon.html Three snippets that are on topic for our group, but there is more discussion of G-d there than this: "I was an atheist when I entered medical school. I was a Christian when I left and it was much driven by this experience of trying to integrate the reductionist aspects of science into the much more fundamental issues I saw my patients wrestling with, like is there a God and does God care about me and what happens after I die? "Those are uncomfortable questions for an atheist 23-year-old, but ultimately they became totally compelling and required some investigation and some answers. Ultimately, out of that, it came to me that it makes a lot more sense to believe in God than to deny God's existence. A scientist isn't supposed to make assertions that you would call universal negatives, because you can never have enough evidence to do that, and yet that's what atheism calls you to do. ... "Similarly, the way that some people have caricatured science as a threat to God, that doesn't resemble the science that I'm doing. It's been a terrible, I think, consequence of our last century or so that this polarization has been accepted as inevitable when I see it not at all in that light. There are many interesting scientific questions that tap into the kind of area that you're asking about, like what is the neuroscientific basis of consciousness? What is the neuroscientific basis of a spiritual experience? If there is such a neuroscientific basis, does that make this spiritual experience less meaningful or more so? Those are fun conversations to have." "... What is our future? I don't want to see a future where this science-versus-faith conflict leads to a winner and a loser. If science wins and faith loses, we end up with a purely technological society that has lost its moorings and foundation for morality. I think that could be a very harsh and potentially violent outcome. But I don't want to see a society either where the argument that science is not to be trusted because it doesn't agree with somebody's interpretation of a Bible verse wins out. That forces us back into a circumstance where many of the gifts that God has given us through intellectual curiosity and the tools of science have to be put away. "So I want to see a society that flourishes by bringing these worldviews together by being careful about which worldview is most likely to give you the truth, depending on the question you're asking." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole http://www.aishdas.org/asp heart, your entire soul, and all you own." Author: Widen Your Tent Love is not two who look at each other, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:30:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714183052.GC21268@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:40:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate > dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), > as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will > be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised > (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- > r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? I'm uncomfortable with your formulation, but I think I agree with your point. As microelectronics become more embedded in society, it's harder to consider their use uvda dechol. So pesaqim ought change. In RMF's case.... What changed over time was not whether a given fact was uvda dechol. He assumed that use of a timer would pose mar'is ayin issues, and that metzi'us changed. A close parallel, but not exactly the same. And yes, it could well be the tzibbur who make that point known to the posqim. (Especially today, when the gedolim we look to for pesaq often are men who never left yeshiva life. As opposed to the previous generations when we looked to the town's rav for pesaqim.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward http://www.aishdas.org/asp by patting yourself on the back. Author: Widen Your Tent -Anonymous - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:30:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714183052.GC21268@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:40:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate > dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), > as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will > be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised > (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- > r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? I'm uncomfortable with your formulation, but I think I agree with your point. As microelectronics become more embedded in society, it's harder to consider their use uvda dechol. So pesaqim ought change. In RMF's case.... What changed over time was not whether a given fact was uvda dechol. He assumed that use of a timer would pose mar'is ayin issues, and that metzi'us changed. A close parallel, but not exactly the same. And yes, it could well be the tzibbur who make that point known to the posqim. (Especially today, when the gedolim we look to for pesaq often are men who never left yeshiva life. As opposed to the previous generations when we looked to the town's rav for pesaqim.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward http://www.aishdas.org/asp by patting yourself on the back. Author: Widen Your Tent -Anonymous - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:21:12 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Yehareig velo ya'avor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I posted on this issue here and on another list: >> If a Ben Noach [Noahide, i.e. non-Jew] is being forced to abrogate >> one of his 7 mitzvot... > I received this [from Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter]: >> If you accept the authority of Rambam, this is black-letter law. See Sefer >> Shoftim, Hilkhoth Mlakhim UMilxmotheyhem, Chapter 10, Paragraph 2: "A Ben-Noax >> who is compelled to violate one of his commandments is allowed to do so > Thanks for the cite! If you check out the mishneh lmelech there For those who didn't look, it's at: https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rtype=%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98&mfid=104611&rid=15005 > he refers > to the parshat drachim derech atarim (drasha #2) who makes exactly the > argument I proposed as why a ben noach would be required to give up his > life rather than kill someone. But also says "debishfichus damim mitzvah haben-noach sheyeihareig ve'al ya'avor". By making it about "mai chazis" it isn't about the 7 mitzvos in general, or even the other two mitzvos that for Jews are yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Rather, because the only question is who dies, not the comparative values are life vs obedience. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation http://www.aishdas.org/asp -- just think of an incurable disease such as Author: Widen Your Tent inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:25:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:25:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:38:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger wrote: >> But in general, there is an increasing reluctance to pasqen in >> some circles. Whether Brisker chumeros or the MB's advice to >> either play safe in some places or avoid the question in another. >> So, we're seeing more and more of it. > I spent a couple of minutes trying to think of examples of this phenomenon, > and I ended up agreeing that this *seems* to be more common in hilchos > brachos... > However, in most other areas of halacha, it's not a choice of this or that. > It's a question of issur and heter. (Or of chiyuv and not.) In such cases, > "avoiding the situation" tends to be synonymous with "being machmir".... I would agree for the "defy the question" pesaqim being more common in hilkhos berakhos. But I don't see Brisker chumeros or baal nefesh yachmir being more of a berakhah thing. Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of safeiq would be lehaqeil. My largely implied question was how to save this reluctance to pasqen from accusations of lack of faith in the entire concept of pesaq and deciding halakhah. Nu, so for the Briskers, I takeh think they don't believe that a pesaq settles the din anymore. As the Rambam put it, Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah. But for the CC and the rest of us? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; http://www.aishdas.org/asp Experience comes from bad decisions. Author: Widen Your Tent - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From zev at sero.name Tue Jul 14 12:29:37 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Yehareig velo ya'avor In-Reply-To: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> References: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <27345b4a-f329-cfd4-8b0f-8b8be1147f72@sero.name> >> Thanks for the cite! If you check out the mishneh lmelech there > > For those who didn't look, it's at: > https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rtype=%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98&mfid=104611&rid=15005 > >> he refers >> to the parshat drachim derech atarim (drasha #2) who makes exactly the >> argument I proposed as why a ben noach would be required to give up his >> life rather than kill someone. > > But also says "debishfichus damim mitzvah haben-noach sheyeihareig ve'al > ya'avor". By making it about "mai chazis" it isn't about the 7 mitzvos > in general, or even the other two mitzvos that for Jews are yeihareig > ve'al ya'avor. Rather, because the only question is who dies, not the > comparative values are life vs obedience. Thank you. However if the Rambam agreed with this it's odd that he didn't say so. And the svara against it seems fairly simple: Yisrael are commanded in kiddush haShem; we're expected to sometimes put obedience ahead of our lives. Therefore when considering for which mitzvos we must do so, the svara of "mai chazis" compels us to include this. It wouldn't make sense to say that for AZ we must be moser nefesh, but for shfichas damim we needn't. But for Bnei Noach the whole concept of mesirus nefesh doesn't exist. They are never expected to do that; we have an explicit pasuk that they're even allowed to serve AZ rather than die. So how can we tell them to sacrifice themselves for mai chazis? On the contrary, they will tell you exactly mai chazina -- this is my life and that is his. To *me* my life is more important than his, just as I expect that to *him* his life is more important than mine. Just as I would give my life to save my children, because theirs are more important to me than mine, so I will give your life to save mine, because mine is more important to me than yours. It's only once the principle that there is something higher than survival is established that we can extend it with mai chazis. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Tue Jul 14 12:55:07 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:55:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <722273ba-58af-d192-57ea-032a8f9cd3e5@sero.name> On 14/7/20 2:25 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Nu, so for the Briskers, I takeh think they don't believe that a pesaq > settles the din anymore. As the Rambam put it, Rav Ashi veRavina sof > hora'ah. Or, they believe in psak in principle, but not in their own ability to pasken, and they're not too sure about your ability either, or his or his or his. But I think there's also a good helping of the gemara's statement that a baal nefesh doesn't eat meat on which a psak was required; as the proverb goes, "a shayla macht treif". Only if the heter is found explicitly in the sources, so that no reasoning was needed can one eat the meat without any qualms. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 03:25:38 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 06:25:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue Message-ID: . R" Micha Berger wrote: > Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't > which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because > there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of > safeiq would be lehaqeil. Safeiq "rather than" pesaq?? Can the two be differentiated? Isn't psak *based* on safek, trying to figure out where Truth resides? > My largely implied question was how to save this reluctance to > pasqen from accusations of lack of faith in the entire concept > of pesaq and deciding halakhah. As I see it, it's not that we have a lack of *faith* in psak, but that we're so confused about how it works. And especially, how it works nowadays when there's no Sanhedrin. To me, the classic case in bitul is bitul b'rov. Does the minority really lose its identity to the point that all pieces can be eaten by a single person at one time? Or is it only a procedural psak, such that we are fearful for each item, and they must be shared among several people, or eaten by one person at different times, etc etc. And it carries through to psak too. Can I really ignore the minority opinion? Without a Sanhedrin to actually discuss and vote, how can I be sure that the other camp is wrong? And so, just as we "avoided the issue" by having several people share the probably-kosher items, we also "avoid the issue" in psak by finding a situation where we don't choose between the several opinions. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 15 02:48:25 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:48:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] action or results? Message-ID: There are four identical quadruplets brothers, Robert, Simon, Larry and Judah. Robert , Larry and Simon are all asymptomatic carriers of the corona virus but Judah is not. The local law and rabbinic authorities require wearing a mask when going out in public but none of them do. The four brothers are not clearly identifiable, when seen, as orthodox Jews but are so known by the public. They all go outside to identical public events where their identities are not known. Robert infects a number of people but he's never identified as the source of the infection. Larry infects a number of people and is identified as a source of infection in the media. Judah never infects anybody and neither does Simon. What shows up on each brothers' permanent record card in shamayim? Is it multidimensional? 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 JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 15 02:50:41 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? 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 zev at sero.name Wed Jul 15 07:03:18 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5622a8f8-7434-2f3e-086c-d0052a01ff28@sero.name> On 15/7/20 5:50 am, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required to > give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol > worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching > theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and > not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? I don't believe there is. These three are not worse than other sins. E.g. murder is only an issur hereg, and is therefore *less* severe than any issur skila and sreifa. So the term "Big 3" is a misnomer; they're in the category for being big. And they didn't all get in to the category in the same way. Avoda Zara comes from the pasuk "venikdashti". Murder comes in from the svara of "mai chazis". And all the arayos come in because of the pasuk that compares eshes ish to murder, so they are included in the "mai chazis" even though that svara doesn't apply to them! Which is very strange. Then there are other mitzvos that also *obviously* override pikuach nefesh, so obviously that they don't need to be listed, such as milchemes mitzvah. (For that matter, since one is required to go even to a milchemes hareshus if the king conscripts one, that too must override pikuach nefesh. And obviously war overrides venishmartem.) Bris also involves a certain level of risk, and historically it was just accepted that a certain number of babies will die from it, and that we have to accept this. So to that extent it also overrides pikuach nefesh, until the risk rises high enough to change that. Losing one child obviously increases the probability of there being a genetic defect in the family, and yet it is not enough to cancel future brissen in that family. Only a second loss does that. Then we have a pasuk that earning a living justifies taking certain risks with ones life; while I wouldn't call this overriding pikuach nefesh or venishmartem, it obviously puts a limit on those principles that many people don't consciously acknowledge. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 15:13:54 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200715221354.GF8072@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:50:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required > to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol > worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching > theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and > not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? One is the greatest violation of Torah, one of Avodah, and one of Gemilus Chassadim. AZ as the inverse of Avodah and Murder as the inverse of Gema"ch shouldn't need elaboration. As for arayos... In the Maharal's commentary on that mishnah, he describes the three amudei olam as a relationship with one's soul, with G-d and with other people. Torah perfects the relatiosionship with oneself. Whereas someone who pursues arayos turns that self into a menuval. Torah is about perfection of the mind, middos and the rest of the soul. Arayos is about giving up on all that and just answering to the body. Living cannot be at the expense of an axe to a pillar one's life stands on. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of http://www.aishdas.org/asp greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, Author: Widen Your Tent in fact, of our modesty. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 05:42:49 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 08:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required > to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of > idol worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one > overarching theme that links these three transgressions that explains > why these and not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? If there's an overarching theme, I haven't found it yet. I have tried to find the reason for each of these three, what makes them different than the other 610, and I've come up with very different answers for each of them. If I'm not mistaken, murder is the only one for which the Gemara gives an explicit reason. If my life is at stake, and the only solution is at the cost of someone else's life, who's to say that my blood is redder? Simple math. Or simple logic, your choice. Next is avodah zara. I came up with this answer myself, so I eagerly welcome any comments about it. My logic is like this: An inventive mind can come up with all sorts of justifications for violating mitzvos in extreme circumstances. "Violate this Shabbos so he will keep many other Shabbosos," for example. Eliyahu built a bamah on Har Carmel, because he knew it would lead to Kiddush Hashem. But Avoda Zara is the sort of thing where - by definition - the means NEVER justify the ends. There is NO situation in which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be Kiddush Hashem. It's a contradiction in terms. Even the opportunity to do mitzvos for the rest of my life can't justify an actual Avodah Zara today. (I'm not talking about where someone merely pretends to do Avodah Zara; that's a more complicated topic and might be justified by some poskim in some cases.) But to actually do real Avodah Zara is treason against Hashem and never allowed. That leaves Arayos. This is a very strange halacha, especially to the general culture arounds us, which accepts these acts (when done by consenting adults) as victimless pleasures, not capital crimes. Non-logical chukim. So why is it that we must avoid these acts, even at the cost of our lives? Doesn't make sense. The tentative answer I've come up with is that this halacha is meant to help insure solid family life. Society around us is falling apart, and many people think that one of the causes is that too many children grow up without strong family values. It is merely my guess, but I can't help but suspect that this is why Hashem made Arayos so very very assur, to impress this value upon us. Even if (lo aleinu) a situation actually arises, and a person is tempted to rationalize that he can do this aveirah today and live to do mitzvos tomorrow, it is still not worth it. That's the message of the severity of this halacha. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hanktopas at gmail.com Sun Jul 19 06:59:31 2020 From: hanktopas at gmail.com (Henry Topas) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 09:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: Recently, I have heard of some shuls beginning Shabbat morning davening at Nishmat or even at Shochayn Ad. This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the same Sha'tz conclude what he started? Kol tuv, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 00:59:57 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:59:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan Message-ID: Just catching up and the message from R' Joel Rich on Sun, 24 May 2020 caught my eye. RJJ wrote: > In the case of the woman putting on a tallis without tzitzis- there > was no real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis > - ie fulfil the mitzvah (except her rabbi told her not to), so why > would you be satisfied with second best. I'm not so sure about the "no real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis" part. In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar could cause carrying in a public domain. Along those lines one could argue that a tallis may also cause one to carry in the public domain if not tied properly, or strings break off, etc. Just a thought, - Danny From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Jul 20 07:02:26 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:02:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when > we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed > by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as > the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the > same Sha'tz conclude what he started? See S"A O"C 53:3 (Shatz vs. tzibbur) https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Orach_Chayim.53.3 She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, Joel Rich From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 11:26:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:59:57AM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: > In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. > > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. ... In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! So, I'm not sure why the HM needs to invoke the risk of an aveirah. Lo zakhisi lehavin. And more to our point, the lack of berakhah doesn't seem to me to prove the mitzvah itself should be avoided because it means some risk exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but the lighting of a fire. Author: Widen Your Tent - W.B. Yeats - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From cbkaufman at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 13:58:38 2020 From: cbkaufman at gmail.com (Brent Kaufman) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:58:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 (4) Message-ID: There are actually 4 big ones that one must voluntarily give one's life rather than transgress. A person is obligated to die rather than transgress any mitzvah in the Torah if one is being forced to do so publicly during a time of shmad. The Rambam lists this, but I didn't check before writing this, for its exact reference. chaimbaruch kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 19:12:11 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 22:12:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: . I wrote: > But Avoda Zara is the sort of thing where - by definition - > the means NEVER justify the ends. There is NO situation in > which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be Kiddush > Hashem. It's a contradiction in terms. I made a typing error there. What I had intended to write was: "There is NO situation in which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be *L'Shem Shamayim*. It's a contradiction in terms." It's not difficult to imagine situations (or cite historical incidents) where someone might do an aveirah L'Shem Shamayim. But that's for the other 612. It seems to me categorically impossible for someone to do actual Avoda Zara (as opposed to merely going through the motions, which is also assur, but *possibly* not yehareg v'al yaavor) for L'Shem Shamayim reasons. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 05:41:45 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:41:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: > This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when > we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed > by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as > the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the > same Sha'tz conclude what he started? I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. E.g.: We learned in a Mishna in Brachos that if the Shat"z cannot continue, a substitute continues where he left off. More common: Aveilim often switch Shat"z at Ashrei - the 2nd one saying Kadish Tiskabal (may our prayers be accepted) even though the first one said the actual Amida that this is going on. In your case, both congregants will be saying both opening and closing Brachot - so I'm not even sure what you're asking. Kol Tuv - Danny From doniels at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 05:34:42 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:34:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> References: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB commented on my thought: > In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos > that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To > the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem > in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! That's THIS VERY Rambam. > So, I'm not sure why the HM needs to invoke the risk of an aveirah. Lo > zakhisi lehavin. > > And more to our point, the lack of berakhah doesn't seem to me to prove > the mitzvah itself should be avoided because it means some risk exists. My mistake for getting you mixed up. The HM isn't commenting on Tzitzis - that part is my "chiddush"... that there's a "good reason" why women didn't wear Tzitzis over the generations. The HM was commenting IIUC why the Rambam talks about women wearing Tzitzis but not Tefillin. I can't find the HM on Sefria, or I'd link to it. Kol Tuv - Danny From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Tue Jul 21 12:08:22 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:08:22 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan Message-ID: <000001d65f92$4e243cf0$ea6cb6d0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:59:57AM +0300 RDS wrote: > In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. > > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. And then RMB responded: <> We need to back up here. There is a fundamental machlokus in the gemora between Rabbi Yehuda (supported by Rabbi Meir), and Rabbi Yossi (supported by Rabbi Shimon) as to whether women are permitted to perform mitzvos aseh she hzman grama - from which they are exempt. Rabbi Yossi says "reshus" - ie they are allowed. Rabbi Yehuda says no, it is assur for women to perform mitzvos asseh shehazman grama. And there are two explanations given for Rabbi Yehuda forbidding women performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. The first (eg by Rashi) is of Bal Tosif. That is, if the Torah says women are exempt from performing certain mitzvos, then for them to go ahead and perform them would violate the principle of bal tosif. However, most rishonim argue that bal tosif does not make sense here, and therefore most rishonim, including those who posken like Rabbi Yehuda, do so not under the principle of bal tosif, but under a principle that can be called "halachic counter-pressure". That is, even Rabbi Yehuda did not forbid all women from doing acts that constitute mitzvos (such as sitting in a sukkah on Sukkos, which, if you follow the bal tosif principle would be ossur for a women to do), but only where there are halachic counter-pressures, and the Haagahos Maimoniyos is quoting some of the halachic counter-pressures that the rishonim discuss. As we all know, we posken (both Sephardim (via the Shulchan Aruch) and Ashkenazim (via the Rema)), like Rabbi Yossi, that women *may* perform mitzvos aseh shehazman grama, and this Rambam is one of the bases for the way the Shulchan Aruch poskens. However: a) there are a significant number of rishonim who posken like Rabbi Yehuda; and b)even within Rabbi Yossi, there are those who say that Rabbi Yossi only permits where the halachic counter-pressure is something less than a Torah prohibition. If, like the Rambam, you holds that saying a bracha sheino tzricha is a Torah violation, and you hold according to this view in Rabbi Yossi, you end up with the Rambam's position. If you follow Tosfos (Ri and Rabbanu Tam), who holds that saying a bracha sheino tzricha is merely a rabbinic prohibition, then following Rabbi Yossi t would be pushed aside in the circumstance of a woman performing a mitzvah that is a reshus. So holds the Rema. For various talks I have given on this, I have drawn up the following diagrams - I don't know if they will come out in the digest form, but I think people find them useful to understand some of the complexity. [RMB, is there some way of embedding these in the digest?] If you don't get them, I am happy to email them separately. Bottom line there are a lot of rishonim who did not hold like Rabbi Yossi, and this is reflected in, inter alia, the discussion regarding tzitzis. Because while the Tur, following his father the Rosh and the Rabbanu Tam/Ran happily permit women to make blessings over shofar and lulav, he says in Tur Orech Chaim Hilchot Tzitzit siman 17 ".And the Rambam writes that they may wrap without a blessing, and he is going in his position that explains that women are not able to bless on something from which they are exempt but Rabbanu Tam writes that they are able to bless even though they are exempt and it is better that they do not bless ..". And the Bach, picking up on this seeming contradiction says (Bach Orech Chaim Siman 17) On "And it is better that they do not bless"; There is to ask from that which he writes in siman 589 in connection with shofar that even though women are exempt they are able to blow and to bless and one should not protest. And it seems to me that it seems from here that in connection with tzitzis that it is not the custom for women to wear, and to bless, if so if a woman comes to ask ab initio if it is permitted to dress in tzitzis and to bless he should say to her that she should not bless because it is better that they should not bless given the disagreement of our rabbis but with shofar where they are already accustomed to blow and to bless they do not protest since they have on whom to rely but if they come to ask ab initio also with shofar you should say to them that they should not bless and we should rely on what was written here regarding tzitzis and this is the law [also] regarding shofar." But, it seems to me, to understand this portion, it is necessary to fully understand the depth of rishonic opposition to women performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. The Hagahios Maymoniyos was one of a number of Ashkenazi rishonim who disagreed with Rabbanu Tam/Ri/Ran and held one should posken like Rabbi Yehuda. Regards Chana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 19942 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.png Type: image/png Size: 21255 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.png Type: image/png Size: 20358 bytes Desc: not available URL: From simon.montagu at mail.gmail.com Tue Jul 21 03:40:33 2020 From: simon.montagu at mail.gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:40:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:59 PM Danny Schoemann wrote: > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. What mitzva couldn't potentially cause an aveira, including ones which women do aliba dekhulei alma? Bad timing in candle-lighting could cause hillul shabbat. On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 9:34 PM Micha Berger wrote: > In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos > that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To > the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem > in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! As I may have noted before, the general trend among Sepharadi aharonim is to follow RT against the SA and Rambam, and say that women at least can, and IIIRC davka _should_ make berachot on these mitzvot. ROY, kedarko bakodesh, insists on following Maran. From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 22 02:56:47 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:56:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?God=92s_existence?= Message-ID: Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all. I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience. It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place I?m not sure that came out as clearly as I might?ve liked but I hope you get the general idea. Thoughts? She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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 bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 22 12:57:46 2020 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:57:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A couple of points relevant to the 'big 3'. Firstly, as has been noted, they are not the only situations of yeihareig v'al yaavor. In addition to the situation of sha'as ha'shmad, the yerushalmi notes that mitzvos bein adam l'chaveiro are also YVAY. Like theft. And I believe we pasken that way. BUT that's not to diminish their uniqueness as YVAY mitzvos. They are mentioned in targum yonasan as a discrete set of YVAY mitzvos, I noticed in the last couple of weeks while doing chad targum. Although I couldn't find it again when I looked. That does mean the derivation in the Bavli is way after the din was already known, by a few hundred years at the least. And points to a much more them being a much more fundamental set of 3 with an early origin in halacha. In response to RZS's point about there being no obvious connection between them, that may well be exactly because they represent the extremes of three different branches of avoda, per the Maharal, and their only connection being that they are all archetypes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 23 08:21:33 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:21:33 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: <002001d66104$f2fb7ea0$d8f27be0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RAM wrote: In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this is the one I want to ask about.) > The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation of > Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana (danger). > Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the Mishnah, shuls > were located outside of the cities where it was not safe to be alone > at night. The Rabbis were concerned that people who came late to shul > might be left alone while finishing to daven. To give latecomers a > chance to catch up and finish davening with everyone else, Chazal > extended the davening by adding Mei'ein Sheva. <> And RAF suggested: <> However it seems to me that this does not answer RAM's question, as the point RAM makes is that Me'en Sheva is a very short additional prayer, and doesn't seem to make much difference one way or the other. Can I make a different suggestion (but again only a suggestion). I have been looking at something called Teshuvat HaGeonim HaChadashot, which, according to Bar Ilan (which is where I sourced it) was published by Simcha Emanuel in Jerusalem, 1995, from a manuscript in the Baron Gunzberg library includes previously unpublished geonic responsa, as well as the writings of early proven?al scholars. In it, in a discussion on the nature of kaddish found at siman 35, the presumably Gaonic author explains the locations of all the kaddishim and after explaining where they are in relation to Shachrit and Mincha (and why) he says ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? +?' ????? ??, ?+ ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? [???] ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??[?]? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????. " And after the blessings of reciting the shema of arvit because the prayer of arvit is reshut [Brachot 27b] and perhaps a person will go out from the synagogue after they finish the blessings of emet v?emunah and will not pray there with ten, and it will be that he will go out without kaddish." That is, there was a genuine concern that because arvit was reshut, people might come to say shema together, and then leave, hence the kaddish after shema and before shmonei esrei of arvit. Now, if that was a genuine concern, then maybe that also explains me'in sheva (especially if you understand me'in sheva as requiring, or at least being ideally, said with the community as a whole). Maybe the point is that a latecomer, given that arvit is reshut, was likely simply to say shema and its blessings and not bother to say shmone esrei at all but simply walk out. However with the incentive of saying me'in sheva together with the rest of the congregation, and with other people prepared to wait for him so that the me'en sheva would be communal, he would actually daven shmonei esrei in the presence of the minyan, so that he could then say me'en sheva with it. >Akiva Miller Kind regards Chana From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 23 09:34:09 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:34:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: <003001d6610f$17ad5ed0$47081c70$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: <> I should have pointed out that this particular teshuva was signed by Rav Avraham ben Rav Yitzchak - and given that he references "a few Geonim" and "other Geonim", later in the piece, it is more likely to be someone like Abraham ben Isaac de Narbonne (1110-1179), so more of a Rishon than a Gaon, despite the name of the compilation. Kind regards Chana From wolberg at yebo.co.za Sun Jul 26 09:36:50 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 18:36:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan 32:76 Message-ID: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> [AhS Yomi for yesterday covered OC 32:73-79. https://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi -mi] Loved the line: ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? -- ??? ??? ????? ???? ???. [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." -mi] Any comment on it? From zev at sero.name Sun Jul 26 16:10:19 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:10:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan 32:76 In-Reply-To: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> References: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> Message-ID: <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> On 26/7/20 12:36 pm, wolberg--- via Avodah wrote: > [AhS Yomi for yesterday covered OC 32:73-79. https://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi > -mi] > > Loved the line: ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? -- ??? ??? ????? ???? ???. > [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- > ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. > > [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts > about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." > -mi] > > Any comment on it? I think "yeseros" here means "superfluous", rather than merely "additional". Of course that begs the question, but I think that in general it's a statement of principle, not a rule for practice, though in this instance the AhS gives his opinion on what is superfluous. (I'd also translate "ein daas chachomim nocha meihem" less literally, as "Torah authorities do not approve of them", or even, riskily, "Daas Torah does not approve of them".) -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:50:00 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daas Chachamim Noachah Heimenu In-Reply-To: <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> References: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200727105000.GA9656@aishdas.org> In translating a Hebrew quote posted to the list, I wrote: >> [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- >> ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. >> >> [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts >> about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." >> -mi] On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 07:10:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > (I'd also translate "ein daas chachomim nocha meihem" less literally, as > "Torah authorities do not approve of them", or even, riskily, "Daas Torah > does not approve of them".) I was always taught something along the lines of your first version. I think it was R Yaakov Haber that I heard this from, but the idiom could equally have been intended to me something more like (loosely) "... isn't thinking with daas Torah". I found the argument compelling enough to try to offer both translations. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From driceman at optimum.net Mon Jul 27 07:36:27 2020 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?God=E2=80=99s_existence?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> RJR: > > Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all. > I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah > We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience. > > It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al > > In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place I haven?t read RAL?s essay (link?), but doesn?t RYhL use this idea at the beginning of the Kuzari, a generation before the Rambam? David Riceman From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Jul 27 09:04:15 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:04:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?God=E2=80=99s_existence?= In-Reply-To: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> References: , <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> Message-ID: <1E4BB098-3996-4C02-9BE1-6CA8B3672151@Segalco.com> I haven?t read RAL?s essay (link?), https://www.etzion.org.il/en/source-faith-faith-itself 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:14:27 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:14:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727201427.GC12492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 06:25:38AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R" Micha Berger wrote: >> Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't >> which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because >> there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of >> safeiq would be lehaqeil. > Safeiq "rather than" pesaq?? Can the two be differentiated? Isn't psak > *based* on safek, trying to figure out where Truth resides? Not safeiq rather than pesaq, "rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq". More reliance on safeiq deOraisa lehachmir, safeiq derabbanan lequlah -- unless efshar levareir / it's easy enough to be machmir. Of course, a baal nefesh may have a different definition of "easy enough". As opposed to looking to which shitah is stated by the gadol bekhochmah uveminyan (minyan rabbanim, rav with bigger following [looking at the Rambam or the Rosh...]), the logic of the sevara behind each possible pesaq, looking to see which pesaq was apparently accepted for how long and how broadly, hefsed meruba, kavod haberios... You know, the rules of pesaq. These latter kind of rules tend to be invoked less often than in the past. I think it comes from the Gra's position on the comparative unreality of pesaq after Rav Ashi and Ravina, taking the Rambam's "sof hora'ah" quite literally. Picked up by the Soloveitchiks, and with the popularity of Brisk among those who pasqen today... Add to that the whole concept of lomdus. Whether Brisker or other derakhim. When you value sevara much more than the other factors posqim have to balance, and you learn how to explain the sevara of all sides of a machloqes... There are fewer times the remaining rules of pesaq rise to the level of giving a clear answer. My latter two paragraphs feed into: > As I see it, it's not that we have a lack of *faith* in psak, but that > we're so confused about how it works. And especially, how it works nowadays > when there's no Sanhedrin. But we seem to disagree mostly on description rather than content: > And it carries through to psak too. Can I really ignore the minority > opinion? Without a Sanhedrin to actually discuss and vote, how can I be > sure that the other camp is wrong? ... "How can I be sure" IS a lack of faith in our ability to pasqen, as I would use the terms. Maybe the insecurity comes from a lack of surity we know how to do it right. I would still call it a lack of faith. If you don't think pesaq can be done the way the Rif, the Rambam, the Tur, the SA, the Levush, etc... did, that their precedent doesn't tell you how to decide which of the eilu va'eilu should become halakhah lemaaseh, that lack of faith in how to do pesaq has scary implications. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:19:21 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:19:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] action or results? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727201921.GD12492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:48:25AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > There are four identical quadruplets brothers, Robert, Simon, Larry and > Judah. Robert , Larry and Simon are all asymptomatic carriers of the > corona virus but Judah is not... > They all go outside to identical public events where their identities are > not known. Robert infects... > What shows up on each brothers' permanent record card in shamayim? Is > it multidimensional? Rachmana liba ba'i. Their records show each one's lack of concern for other's safety. Consequences, if they are correlated at all and some other aspect of hashgachah doesn't overwhelm this rule, megalgelim chov al yedei chayav. Which implies that who gets whom sick would at most be *indicative* of guilt for this or other deeds, not the actual thing he is guilty of. A person isn't judged for the results of their actions, or even for their actions themselves. (So, I'm denying both sides of the question in the subject line.) A person is judged "ba'asher hu sham" -- what kind of changes those decisions and actions made in themselves. I would take it for granted it's multidimensional. The person's "permanent record card" is their own soul. And the effects of their actions can improve one thing about the soul while damaging something else about it. A comparatively easy example is tact. a person can make a person that makes them more truthful, but gains that Emes at the expense of their drive for Shalom. And even without the previous paragraphs, Hashem isn't a Vatra -- the person will get the Tov that a more Emesdik soul has a beis qibbul for, and get less of the Tov that comes with losing some passion for Shalom. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:00:57 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727210057.GF12492@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: >> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when >> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed >> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as >> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the >> same Sha'tz conclude what he started? > I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. I called it an office, not the occupent. But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same idea. I have a theory why: I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a *shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:54:22 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:54:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] God's existence In-Reply-To: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> References: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20200727205422.GE12492@aishdas.org> RDR mentioned the Kuzari before I found the time to reply. I think what changed was in the discipline of philosophy. In the days of the rishonim, Philosophy was itself a kind of religion. Look at the opening paragraphs of ch. 1 of the Kuzari -- the king's survey includes a Philosopher (1:1), a Muslim, a Christian, and then the chaver. A Jewish Philosopher was a Scholasticist. Such that Rihal, even though the Kuzari is a book of philosophy as we now use the term, saw himself as anti-Philosophy. Then came the scientific method and people realizing the power and limitations of testing things empirically. The tensions between the Empiricists, who trusted these methods, and the Idealists, who wanted all knowledge to be as sound as Math, coming from self-evident postulates. And then the Kantian Revolution through to Existentialism and now Post-Modernism, etc... Philosophy less based on a confidence of being able to prove what's out there and more focused on describing the world as experienced. I argued here a few years back that this is what drove the popularity of universal hashgachah peratis. It's less a break from how rishonim understood HP than looking at a different topic. To the rishonim, a discussion of HP is all about its contrast to nature, randomness, bechirah chofshi, etc... Nowadays, the discussion of HP is about what it is we have bitachon in, how much hishatadlus do we need to invest given that what happens is decided by hashgachah... R Yehudah haLevi had a lack of faith in the idea that we can decisively prove that's really out there. That's for Greeks, who lack the more sure source of data -- mesorah. (1:13, 1:63) That mesorah part isn't very Modern in terms of the discipline of philosophy, but not believing we can ever really prove anything... Well, take this quote from 1:13: "Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved." Sounds downright Post-Modern! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Jul 28 19:19:28 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 22:19:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why did Chazal cancel shiva bc of Yom tov Message-ID: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> Many have recently written how they have missed the full traditional comforting process of shiva due to corona restrictions. That has reawakened in me the question of why did Chazal cancel shiva because of Yom tov? If the catharsis and process of shiva is so comforting and desirable for mourners, why did they take that away because of YT and not simply postpone till after YT. It's hard to say that after YT the shiva experience w be no longer necessary or needed. I saw someone suggest that "The souls of those who passed away now with abbreviated burials and shivas were so pure they ascended directly to heaven and did not require traditional mourning rituals." That is hard to hear because shiva (and YT cancelling shiva) is a rabbinic creation. Suggestions? Mordechai Cohen macohen613 at gmail.com From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 29 03:10:38 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:10:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why did Chazal cancel shiva bc of Yom tov In-Reply-To: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> References: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: That has reawakened in me the question of why did Chazal cancel shiva because of Yom tov? ====================================== As one who sat shiva at the cemetery on erev Pesach, I tried to keep in mind R'YBS's insight into true simcha as being lfnai hashem (which is what we're supposed to be on shalosh regalim). Seeing it through HKB"H's eyes it's all good (we are human and so don't experience it as such). So: She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, which will allow us all to see more clearly 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 micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:37 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 11:02:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Crazy Snakes and Dogs Message-ID: <20200730150237.GA14405@aishdas.org> We repeatedly discussed RYBS's statement that toothpaste is not ra'ui la'akhilas kelev and therefore doesn't need a hekhsher to be KLP. Not where I intended to go, but I should note that we never discussed the actual core issue -- the limits of the principle of achshevei. Since toothpaste is flavored, one could argue it does apply. RMF (IG OC 2:92), ROY (YD 2:60), the Tzitz Eliezer (10:25), says it does not apply when the flavored item isn't being eaten for the sake of the flavor. Excluding medicine -- and the same argument applies to toothpaste. The CI (OC 116:8) limits achshevei to spoiled chameitz, and not to mixtures containing chameitz. The "only" machmir about applying achshevei to medicines that I know of is the She'agas Aryeh (75). Now, back to the topic I did intent to post about.... So, the story goes (version taken from R Chaim Jachter at https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/cosmetics-and-toiletries-for-pesach-part-three-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter ): A charming anecdote that occurred in Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's Shiur at Yeshiva University in the 1970's (reported by Rav Yosef Adler and many others) is often cited in support of the common practice to be lenient. The Rav stated in Shiur that toothpaste is not Ra'ui Liachilat Kelev (unfit for canine consumption) and thus one is permitted to consume it on Pesach even if it contains Chametz. The next day in Shiur a student raised his hand and explained that he conducted an "experiment" the night before. He related that he placed toothpaste in his dog's feeding bowl to see if his dog would eat it -- and indeed, the dog ate the toothpaste!! Rav Soloveitchik simply responded, "Your dog is crazy." This story illustrates the ruling that we cited last week from Rav Soloveitchik that the standards of edibility are not determined by aberrant behavior. R Pesach Sommer recently found Tosefta Terumos 7:13, which is more famously available on Chullin 49b. It /has/ to be what RYBS was thinking of. The gemara says: Detanya: 5 [liquids] do not have [the prohibition] of gilui: brine, vinegar, oil, honey and fish gravy. Rabbi Shimon says: I saw a snake drink fish brine in Tzidon! They said to him: That [snake] was a shetaya, and one doesn't bring a proof from shotim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From hanktopas at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 20:29:43 2020 From: hanktopas at gmail.com (Henry Topas) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 23:29:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: >> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when >> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed >> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as >> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the >> same Sha'tz conclude what he started? > I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. I called it an office, not the occupent. But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same idea. I have a theory why: I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a *shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post! -Micha Shavua Tov, Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue for Kaddish Shalem? Thank you and Kol Tuv, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 02:36:36 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 12:36:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Henry Topas wrote: > > Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach > of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for > Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or > officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that > reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue > for Kaddish Shalem? What you describe is nothing I've found in the written Poskim. Where I grew up (various Yekkishe Kehiloth) the Ovel was "off the hook" when Hallel was recited. I see this being done in Yeshivishe minyonim, seemingly to "prevent" the Ovel from being Shatz for Hallel. (Also not recorded, AFAIK, except during Shiva.) So, my guess is, that since the Ovel wants to say as many Kadieshim as possible he "gets back the Omud" after Hallel - giving him one more Kaddish. This has no bearing on our discussion, it's a question (and answer) on a recent "Minhag/Hanhogo". Kol Tuv - Danny From emteitz at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 14:06:35 2020 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 17:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: Henry Topas wrote: However one looks at the office of shat"z, there is a difference between chazaras hashat"z and the rest of davening. For everything else, he is essentially a pacer, keeping everyone at the same point in davening, and the leader, in terms of kaddish and borchu. For the amidah, he is definitely a shaliach, whose role it is to be motzi those who cannot themselves daven. It would be possible theoretically not to have a shat"z, having all daven together, and then having one person who, at the appropriate times, would say kaddish and borchu. Chazaras hashat"z, however, must obviously have a shat"z. On days when Hallel is said, it is not a part of chazaras hashat"z; it is, in essence said *during *the chazara, after which the chazara is completed by saying kaddish shalem, which *is* a part of the chazara. (Hallel is in the same category as slichos on fast days, which was originally said during the shat"z's saying the bracha of Slach lanu. Then, too, I believe that someone other than the shat'"z could have led the slichos while the shat"z remained at the amud.) That the aveil should not lead Hallel, but should return for the kaddish because it is a part of the Amidah, is spelled out in the Mishna Brura (581:7). This leads to questioning the practice, when there is more than one aveil, of switching ba'alei tfila at Ashrei-Uva l'Tzion. There are some who object to the practice for that very reason, but apparently it is in the same category as allowing kaddish to be said by more than one person at a time: a concession to darkei shalom in a highly emotional setting. That the aveil not lead Hallel is the opinion of the overwhelming majority. The Mishna Brura loc.cit. brings the apparent opinion of the GR"A who goes even further, that the aveil not lead the entire Shacharis. The MB also cites, in the Biur Halacha in Siman 132, that there are those who bar the aveil from the amud on any day, other than erev Yom Kippur, that Lamnatzeiach is not said -- and does not limit it just to Shacharis on those days. (This is the minhag in my community.) Incidentally, in parts of Europe and in some shuls in EY, there is no shat"z for psukei d'zimra. The amud is unmanned until Yishtabach. If no one need be there, then certainly where there is one, there is no problem in replacing him for Yishtabach. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolberg at yebo.co.za Wed Aug 5 08:00:26 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 17:00:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Censorship in Aruch HaShulchan Message-ID: <014701d66b39$296ebf40$7c4c3dc0$@yebo.co.za> In 39:3, the AH writes: ger (beyamim kadmonim). This was obviously added for the gov censor, similar to Aruch HaShulchan ChM 388:7. Why do we not find the same in MB? Actually, AH OC was written after the same section in MB. Was the political climate in Novardok and Radin so different? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 10 00:52:25 2020 From: eliturkel at mail.gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:52:25 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potato chips and french fries Message-ID: A nice article on the various opinions of bishul akum for french fries and potato chips https://vosizneias.com/2020/08/10/chareidi-potato-chips-versus-regular-chips/ -- Eli Turkel From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 13:42:35 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:42:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Chaim Brisker on his 102nd Yahrzeit Message-ID: <20200811204234.GA9159@aishdas.org> R Elinatan Kupferburg posted this today on Facebook, lekhavod RCB's 102nd yahrzeit (21 Av). Translitarations mine, "q"s and all. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Today is the yahrzeit of [Maran shel kol Benei Yisrael, Rabbeinu Chaim haLevi,] R. Chaim Soloveitchik. It is far beyond this post, or this site, to capture any of the towering significance of Rabbeinu. For that, there's only one thing to do. You have to learn R. Chaim. You sit for hours poring over a sugya without R. Chaim, only to open the sefer and have R. Chaim, with his penetrating, elegant brilliance guide you through the depths of the sea of Talmud. It's as if you were overhearing snippets of a conversation without knowing the topic and then someone revealed it to you and now everything you heard suddenly falls into place. But I do want to make a couple of points about R. Chaim's legacy. Perhaps the most common metonym used to describe or exemplify what is referred to as "the Brisker method," is the cheftza/gavra distinction, often compared to the in rem/in personam legal distinction, though the two are not entirely analogous. It's part of a broader tendency to describe or teach "the Brisker method" by means of a few templatic distinctions: internal/external, intrinsic/accidental, action/result and so on, and has recently been reinforced by books or pamphlets which attempt to do the same. Unfortunately, not only are these gross simplifications and reductions, they entirely obscure what R. Chaim was actually doing, replace it with a different method of study (albeit one that is more prominent in some of his students, notably R. Elchonon Wasserman) and thereby miss his genius. The halakhic discourse, the lomdus, that pervades the Brisk Yeshiva that grew out of the study group around his son R. Velvel (the Brisker Rav) or the other yeshivas it birthed (including BMG), is dissimilar to this perception. 1. The words [cheftza] and [gavra] do not ever appear anywhere in the same piece in [Chiddushei Rabbeinu Chaim haLevi]!! Yes, really. (Except once in [Mekhilah 22:17,] when [gavra] is a quote from the Gemara, i.e. [hahu gavra]). There's a very good reason for that. Because making templatic distinctions is entirely different than what R. Chaim was doing. R. Chaim was elucidating the concepts that underlie and inform halakhic discourse. What is nature of a legal document? What type of obligation is the command is rid chametz? How does a blemish render an animal unfit for sacrifice? Under which mitzva is this prohibition included? R. Chaim's success is defined by precision of conceptual description, which is opposed to templatic rigidity. The only time that [gavra / cheftza] is actually widely used is in Nedarim 2b, in the distinction between vows and oaths, since there the distinction literally is the locus of the prohibition (vows designate an object as forbidden, oaths compel a person to act in a certain way). Often his discussion is not remotely similar to any of the popular "chakiras." For example, the section of the MT that gets the most attention in R. Chaim is the recondite [Hilkhos Tum'as Meis,] in which the pedestrian templates fail. Distinction is a helpful tool in the art of clarity and the halakhic world is composed of human agents and non-human objects, so parts of his discourse may approximate the infamous [gavra / cheftza] but it is by no means central or representative. To be fair, the templatic perception captures certain aspects of some of his chiddushim, and it does communicate the notion of underlying dyadic conceptual distinctions, but I wonder about its ultimate efficacy. 2. The distinctions that approximate [gavra / cheftza] are much older than R. Chaim. Just to give a few examples: - Rivash (Shut 98) extends the gemara's analysis in Nedarim to all prohibitions. - Rid (Eiruvin 48a) uses it describe the prohibition of transporting an object 4 amos in the public domain on Shabbos. - Chasam Sofer (Chullin 115b) uses it to distinguish different types of prohibitions. - Beis Halevi (Shut 3:51 - R. Chaim's father) uses it to explain the nature of the mitzva to eat korbanos. In a broader sense, this type of analysis can be found most acutely in (to give a few examples, moving backwords) Minchas Chinuch, R. Akiva Eiger, the works of R. Aryeh Leib Heller and R. Yaakov Lorberbaum, Peri Megadim, and, most strikingly, by R. Judah Rosanes, whose [Mishneh laMelekh] and [Parashas Derakhim,] two centuries ahead of their time, prefigured much of the Brisker Torah. Of course, the Gemara and Rishonim (Rashi and Meiri come to mind) are not absent of this lomdus either. A recent terminological case from Daf Yomi: take the discussion about perforating an old hole in a wine barrel on Shabbos 146b, where Rashi describes the halakhic crux as whether or not [paqa sheim 'pesach' mineih.] 3. R. Chaim did a lot of things. - He tightened a terminology. - He sharpened the analysis of halakhic concepts. - He displayed a new way of visualizing a sugya and working through it. - He identified the conceptual systematization that forms the substructure of the Mishneh Torah. - He developed a proto-philosophy of halakhic hermeneutics. - He opened the door for gaonim like R. Shimon Shkop to take analysis in a different direction. - By shifting the backdrop from practical halakha to halakha itself, he enabled us to see halakhic concepts not only as useful for determining practice, but as a way through which to view and interact with the world. Each of these deserves a sustained, independent analysis to identify the existing terminologies and approaches that R. Chaim drew on, and the extent of his own innovative prowess. Most powerfully though, he forever changed the halakhic consciousness. Conceptual analysis is now an inexorable part of the talmudic arsenal. Any advanced student of traditional Gemara who sits down to learn has been sensitized to the possibility of a conceptual distinction at play, even if they have no intention of using what they consider "the Brisker method." For some, R. Chaim's thought is so overwhelming that one can never look at Gemara differently again. But I might venture to say that its power lies in the recognition that even if someone does not walk down the path R. Chaim cleared, then that is precisely what they are doing: not learning like R. Chaim. R. Chaim fundamentally defined the contours of halakhic thought, and we are all in his debt. [Ki gadol sheim avinu beYisrael, ve'or Toraso male'ah teiveil -- misof ha'olam ad sofo mamash, umi zeh milomedei Sorah bedoreinu asher lo zarach alav or shimsho venogah Soraso.] From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Aug 11 14:37:14 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:37:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin Message-ID: If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? 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 zev at sero.name Wed Aug 12 08:07:36 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:07:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/8/20 5:37 pm, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another?s birchat hanehenin > and then did not eat, is it a bracha l?vatala for him? I don't see how it can be. The bracha had effect for the person who said it, so it was not wasted. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:23:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:23:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200812202354.GA10738@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 09:37:14PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin > and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? Berakhah levatalah sounds like a description of the "cheftza" of the berakhah. Not gavra-specific. And what would be levatalah, the mevoreikh's kavvanah to be motzi him? Safeiq berakhos lehaqeil is sometimes explained as safeiq deOraisa lechumerah where the deOraisa is sheim Hashem lashav. Along those lines, one could theorize that as long as the sheim wasn't said lashav, it's not a berakhah levatalah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals http://www.aishdas.org/asp is not as important as Author: Widen Your Tent what you become by achieving your goals. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Henry David Thoreau From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Sun Aug 16 08:51:59 2020 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 11:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Business with an Akum Message-ID: One is not permitted to do any kind of business with an Akum (idol-worshipper) on the day of their festival (nor 3 days prior in the Land of Israel) - Rambam Hil. Avodah Zara Ch. 9, Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 148.1. Question - Today, if I know a shop owner is a religious Xian, am I allowed to shop there on Sunday? Or if I know he is a religious Hindu, do I need to mark my calendar with all of the Hindu festivals and avoid his shop on those days? What about a traditional Chinese person on Chinese New Year? Or a Catholic on All Souls Day? If so, is there any halachic literature that lists all of the dates currently forbidden? (I?m also not allowed to sell to him on his holidays, and if I do (in error), I?m not allowed to enjoy the profits of that sale.) Alexander Seinfeld From joelirarich at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 03:47:26 2020 From: joelirarich at gmail.com (Joel Rich) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 06:47:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat hamazon Message-ID: <8FD081BF-3F42-460C-BE16-588F69071B09@gmail.com> A group of people are having Shabbos meal together in the dining room. They all get up to clear the main course dishes and bring them into the kitchen. The dessert flatware and glasses remain on the table Must they say birchat hamazon immediately upon return to the table? Kt Joel rich From micha at aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 09:00:38 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 12:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re'eih vs Shema Message-ID: <20200816160038.GA25978@aishdas.org> Because we say the words from Va'eschanan multiple times a day, I have heard (pun intended, sadly) a lot about shema when it means something more than the stimulation of neurons in my inner ear. Like the English word "listen", "shema" connotes paying attention, obeying ("eiqev asher shamata beQoli"), etc... So, what do we get from the use of "re'eih", as in the title of this week's parashah? In the past couple of days, I cam up with a theory about the difference between shemi'ah and re'iyah, but want to vet it with the chevrah. Shema introduces a theological fact we can only accept in the abstract. We don't even fully understand how One, Indivisible and Unique Hashem is. We are told to accept ol malkhus Shamayim on this basis, but the fact itself is one we can apprehend, not experience. Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite different than an abstract truth. (This seems to be consistent with "ein domeh shemi'ah lere'iyah". "Re'iyah" is something I can know first-hand.) Ta chazi in the bavli seems to also fit this pattern: Berakhos 58a: Rav Sheishes says to a min, "ta chazi" that I am brighter than you, proceding to show he figured out when the king would come. But then, the point was made at the beginning ot the story that R Sheishes was blind, so ht emay have been using the phrase pointed. Eiruvin 6b: ta chazi that the gates of Neharda'ah couldn't be locked. (And thus Shemu'el doesn't require they be locked in order to permit carrying.) Etc... All cases of "go and check for yourself". Nothing at all like "ta shema", which introduces learning a teaching. And of course "puq chazi". But in the Yerushalmi and the Zohar, "ta chazi" is used the way "ta shema" is in Bavel. So, maybe I am just reading too much into Bavli idiom. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a http://www.aishdas.org/asp person is to remain asleep and untamed." Author: Widen Your Tent - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From kbloom at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 14:30:40 2020 From: kbloom at gmail.com (Ken Bloom) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:30:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? Message-ID: Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Aug 17 15:37:49 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 22:37:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Dialectics? Message-ID: An important caveat (IMHO) from R' A Lebowitz to a number of shiurim from diverse speakers: Me-....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y, and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y? R' AL-I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just a helpful way to contextualize the issues I'm still thinking there's another paradigm shift coming, interested in hearing from others. 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 doniels at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 04:55:45 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:55:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > From: "Rich, Joel" > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3 (excuse the Hebrew for the ????? crowd) - translation from Sefaria (after removing a Chumra not in the original): ????? ????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ?????????, ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ?????????????, ???? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???????. "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi shebeirach [a blessing for those who fast on these days] and you intended to fast, this is sufficient, and no other form of acceptance is needed. " ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query. Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of getting the best of both worlds. Kol Tuv - Danny From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Aug 18 05:43:47 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:43:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query. Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of getting the best of both worlds. ============================================== When I learned this with my chavruta a few months back my comment was - I'd love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - machshava balma (random thought?) which has no halachic significance, amira (specific oral articulation) which is completely binding and amen/specific machshava(really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat indeterminate (not welcome in a brisker world?) 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 doniels at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 05:03:54 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:03:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Re'eih vs Shema In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMB reminded me of a vort I heard and said over at this week's Shabbos table. The opening word of the Sedra - Re'eih - is seemingly superfluous. "I present you today with [the ability to choose between] blessing or curse". What does "Look! I present you...." add? The answer was exactly as RMB proposed: > Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the > world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite > different than an abstract truth. We need to look around and see how choice and its consequences are built into the creation. Kol Tuv - Danny From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Aug 18 05:54:11 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 08:54:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. looking for sources and current custom Message-ID: <015401d6755e$aba2ff10$02e8fd30$@touchlogic.com> #! ... May a women uncover her hair in private? Halachah addresses public, semipublic, and private settings: Public: The Torah states that a woman must completely cover her hair in a public place. Some opinions state that under a tefach (a handbreadth, about three inches total) of hair may show. Semipublic: In a semipublic place, one opinion states that even if men are not usually found there, a married woman must cover her hair. When a woman covers her hair, this brings much blessing into the home Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory...." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required." Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? #2 https://www.yoatzot.org/questions-and-answers/1910/ Question: Does a woman have to cover her hair in front of her brothers? Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the presence of your father, husband and son. Where it is customary and not considered offensive, a woman may uncover her hair in front of her brother in the privacy of her own home. Is this leniency known/relied upon? Is this what people are doing out there today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 17:51:37 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:51:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200819005137.GB6547@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 02:55:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote: > I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3... > "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday > following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi > shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient... > "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you > may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." > This last line is -- in my mind -- parallel to your query. > Seems that answering Amen -- even with intention -- is one way of > getting the best of both worlds. I think the best of both worlds may only because you said amein to blessing the fasters, and not "me too" to someone's pledge to fast. There is mental acceptance during a related verbal act. Not a verbal acceptance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but the lighting of a fire. Author: Widen Your Tent - W.B. Yeats - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 17:48:02 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:48:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Dialectics? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200819004802.GA6547@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:37:49PM +0000, Joel Rich wrote: > Me- >> ....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I >> just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y, >> and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean >> choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y? > R' AL[ebowitz]- >> I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just >> a helpful way to contextualize the issues When discussing Brisker vs Telzher derakhim, everyone focuses on "Vus?" vs "Fahr vus?" (What? vs Why?) But another major different is R' Shimon's heavy use of the concept of hitztarfus -- the idea that a halakhah can be caused by the convergence of multiple factors. >From Widen Your Tent (by me), sec. 6.3: But there is a second distinction: Rav Chaim would explain an apparent contradiction by finding "the chiluk," the distinction between two cases that we initially thought ought to be the same, or the distinction between the viewpoints in two sides of a dispute. Rav Chaim's is a reductionist approach to analyzing a topic; it teaches how to understand something by identifying and understanding each of its parts. This methodology is suited for identifying "the cause" of a law. Rav Shimon also invokes hitztarfus, fusion or connectedness. It allows us to better ask, once we know the parts, how do they combine and interact to produce the given result? From this vantage point, rather than looking for a single cause, we can see that a given ruling can come from the way in which many halachic causes combine. Suppose we were tasked to do analysis to find out why some accident happened. For example: Why did David hurt his foot? Because a paint can fell on it. Why did the can fall? Because someone else accidentally knocked it off its shelf. Why did he knock it off the shelf? Because his nose itched, and he lifted his hand to scratch it, and also because the shelf wasn't on its brackets correctly and wobbled a bit. However, it's equally true that he hurt his foot because even though he usually wears iron-toed hiking boots, he chose not to wear them that that day. And why did he not wear his boots? Because when he was looking for something to put on his feet, someone else had turned on the light in another room, which changed his train of thought. And so on. Every event has many causes, each of which in turn has its own many causes. Rarely does an event only have one cause. We get used to identifying "the cause" of something. I would instead suggest that every event is like "the perfect storm"; each one has combinations of factors that come to a head at the same point. Similarly, Rav Shimon saw no reason to assume that it takes one cause to create an obligation or prohibition, rather than a combination of them. Which I then relate to R Shimon's approach to chessed as a widening of one's "ani" to include others. (The way we naturally have little problem giving to our children, because in a sense, they're "us".) I also use the difference between the focus on reductionism vs interconnectedness to explain a structural difference between Aristo's books and the Mishnah. WHich may be more relevant to the point: This difference between Semitic and Yefetic perspectives can be seen by contrasting the style of Aristotle with that of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Aristotle catalogues. He divides a subject into subtopics, and those subtopics even further, until one is down to the individual fact. Greek thought was focused on reductionism. To understand a phenomenon, break it down into smaller pieces and try to understand each piece. This is typical of the Yefetic perspective. That reductionism stands in contrast to the way Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi redacted the first Mishnah. The beginning of all of Mishnah could have said outright that Rabbi Eliezer ruled that the time for saying the evening Shema is from sunset and for the first third of the night. This is the way United States legal codes are arranged divided and subdivided into law, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, clauses, and items, with an effort to minimize cross-references. Instead the first Mishnah makes its point by invoking the priesthood, purity, and the night shifts in the Temple, "from the time Kohanim [who went to the mikvah to be purified during the prior day] may enter to eat their terumah until the end of the first shift." It describes the start and end times for the mitzvah using referents that one wouldn't normally assume when starting study. This is not to confuse the issue or needlessly close study from non-initiates, but because the key to understanding one mitzvah necessarily includes its connections to everything else. The proper time to say Shema cannot be understood without that context. The task Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi set out to accomplish with the Mishnah was not to explain the rationales of the halachah, and therefore the Mishnah spells out this holistic understanding. We are left not knowing why the rules of when Kohanim who needed the mikvah may eat terumah or the time the first shift in the Beis Hamikdash ended add meaning to the time span in which the nighttime Shema may be said. But the Mishnah does record the law in memorizable form, and apparently that includes helping us remember the halachah by association to the other halachos it relates to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur http://www.aishdas.org/asp with the proper intent than to fast on Yom Author: Widen Your Tent Kippur with that intent. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 12:42:04 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Limits of Parshanut Message-ID: <20200820194204.GA9194@aishdas.org> Parshanut doesn't have rules of pesaq. Nothing ever ends an opinion (lifsoq) once it is derived. So, those 98 ways become 9,604 ways, and then 941,192 ways as each interpretation gets its 98 interpretations. And then we have cases where those who pursue peshat -- Rashbam, IE, most famously -- give a peshat in the pasuq which they acknowledge runs against Chazal. But they feel Chazal weren't working bederekh peshat. (And the Rashbam is clear that he doesn't believe Chazal were wrong, or that anything he says about the pasuq has halachic signicance. E.g. see his comments on "vayhi erev, vayhi boqer".) But, procedurally, there still has to be rules for what kind of interpretation is valid and what aren't. I cannot believe that people can just make stuff up, and if fits a linguistic oddity of the text or a wording in some source of Chazal it's necessarily Torah. I don't know what the limits are. All I know is the limits of my own comfort zone. *To me*, "toras Hashem temimah" means that if I have a theory of how to understand something aggadic -- theology, mussar or parshanut -- it must be driven by material internal to the existing body Torah. If I am forced to an an entirely new understanding that no one proposed before to answer a scientific question, I would prefer leaving the question tabled, teiqu, than to run with this kind of innovation. To me, following a tendency I heard around YU from R YB Soloveitchik's students (my own rebbe, R Dovid, was yet more conservative), this is related to the difference between chiddush and shinui. "There is no beis medrash without chiddush" because learning Torah means extrapolating new points from the existing data. Extrapolation from and interpolation between existing Torah "data points" is chiddush. Shinui is innovation driven by something other than Torah. I am not sure if RYBS would say that in the context of parshanut in particular or not. As I said, as this point we're only discussing the not-that-relevant topic of "Micha's comfort zone". Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... http://www.aishdas.org/asp ... but you're the pilot. Author: Widen Your Tent - R' Zelig Pliskin - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 13:27:15 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:27:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vaccine Trials in Halakhah Message-ID: <20200820202715.GA32236@aishdas.org> Given the need for CoVID-19 vaccine challenge trials, I heard a number of podcasts on the topics of testing or volunteering to be a test subject for an experimental cure. But, it's hard to get people who are reading an email digest to take time for an audio. So, here's a link to something in text. https://thelehrhaus.com/timely-thoughts/signing-up-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-trial Here's the halachic section of the paper, minus all set-up and general ethics discussion. Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; http://www.aishdas.org/asp Experience comes from bad decisions. Author: Widen Your Tent - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF The Lehrhaus Signing Up for a COVID-19 Vaccine Trial By Sharon Galper Grossman and Shamai Grossman August 18, 2020 ... Undergoing Dangerous Medical Procedures in Halakhah Halakhah's approach to dangerous medical procedures begins with Avodah Zara 27b, which permits a hayei sha'ah - a sick individual with a limited time to live - to seek the care of a pagan doctor, because while we worry that a Jew-hating doctor might kill the Jewish patient, he might also effect a long-term cure. However, if the sick individual is unlikely to die, he may not turn to the pagan. The Gemara's explanation as to why we permit the hayei sha'ah to risk his brief remaining time alive is, "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" - we are not concerned about a risk to a short life because the pagan doctor might cure him. The Gemara derives this principle from the dilemma of the four lepers in II Kings 7:3-8. Banished from their city, which was struck by famine, they faced starvation. They saw a camp of Arameans possessing food, and were confronted by the following dilemma. If they were to enter the camp, the Arameans might kill them, yet they might feed them. Preferring possible immediate death from capture to certain subsequent death from starvation, the lepers entered the camp. There they discovered an abundance of food and survived. Tosafot (s.v. le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan) questions the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan." Doesn't Yoma 65a's permission to move stones on Shabbat to search for a hayei sha'ah buried underneath the rubble imply that we value even the briefest survival? Tosafot answers that in both cases we act in the best interest of the patient, rejecting certain death for an uncertainty that might prolong life. Thus, in Avodah Zarah, we disregard hayei sha'ah because otherwise the patient will surely die. In Yoma, we desecrate Shabbat for the hayei sha'ah because if we do not remove the stones, he will also certainly die. Based on Avodah Zara 27b and the story of the lepers, Shulhan Arukh Yoreh De'ah 155:1 codifies the principal "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan," permitting a hayei sha'ah to incur the risk of death at the hands of a pagan doctor in the hope of a long-term cure. Numerous modern poskim[7] rule that a hayei sha'ah may undergo a risky medical procedure if it offers the chance of a long-term cure. Shevut Ya'akov 3:75 explains, "Since the patient will certainly die, we push off the certainty of death and opt for the possibility of cure." One source, however, seems to prohibit the hayei sha'ah from undergoing dangerous medical treatment. Sefer Hasidim 467 describes a special herb remedy with the potential to kill or cure within days of use, accusing the women who prepared it of shortening the lives of their patients. One might interpret his denunciation as a rejection of the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan." Orhot Hayyim, Orah Hayyim 328:10 dismisses this interpretation, explaining that Sefer Hasidim only prohibits the risky remedy because there is an alternative safe treatment. He argues that in the absence of an effective alternative even Sefer Hasidim would accept the risk. Applied to our case ,the absence of an effective cure for COVID-19 might justify engaging in a risky process to find a cure. Does the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" permit healthy volunteers like Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial that injects half of the participants with a vaccine of uncertain benefit, exposing them to a lethal virus? To answer this question, we must determine if hayei sha'ah applies to healthy volunteers who do not face the risk of immediate death, the level of medical risk one may incur to achieve hayei olam (long-term cure), and the level of benefit required to justify the assumption of such risk. In addition, we must establish whether the volunteers may endanger themselves, in the absence of any personal gain, purely for the benefit of others, and whether this principle applies to experimental therapies where the benefit of treatment is unclear. Finally, if Halakhah permits participation, is one obligated to volunteer? Defining Hayei Sha'ah The discussion permitting dangerous medical treatment assumed that the individual had the status of hayei sha'ah - a terminal illness with a limited time to live. Can we interpret hayei sha'ah more broadly, and can we apply this understanding to human vaccine challenge trials involving healthy volunteers? Rishonim and early Aharonim do not define hayei sha'ah precisely. Their interpretation of the term ranges from a life expectancy as short as one to two days to longer than a year (see Table 1). Though these poskim debate the exact duration of life required to satisfy the halakhic definition of hayei sha'ah, they view a hayei sha'ah as an individual with an illness that compromises his life expectancy. At first glance, these poskim would not classify Sam, a healthy young volunteer, as a hayei sha'ah. However, Tiferet Yisrael Yoma, Yakhin 8:3, expands the definition, permitting a healthy individual to undergo smallpox vaccination, which causes death in one in 1,000 individuals, to attain long-term immunity. He dismisses the small risk of immediate death from vaccination so as to prevent future lethal infections and broadens the definition of hayei sha'ah to include situations where the cause of death is not present, but is only a statistical possibility. He bases this ruling on Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which, citing the Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, obligates a person to place himself in a possible danger to save his friend from a certain danger. So for example, if someone sees his friend drowning in the sea, he must jump in to save him though he risks drowning during his attempted rescue. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if a bystander is obligated to incur possible risk to rescue his drowning friend from a possible danger, a healthy individual may accept possible immediate peril to save himself from a possible future danger. Rabbi J.D. Bleich applies Tiferet Yisrael's definition of hayei sha'ah to healthy carriers of the BRCA mutation who act to reduce their high risk of cancer by opting for prophylactic surgery.[8] Though the cancer has not yet developed, they may incur the immediate risk of surgery to increase their life expectancy.[9] Even if we consider a genetic predisposition or a statistical probability a present danger, it is unlikely that unafflicted carriers of such a mutation will die within twelve months. By permitting a healthy individual to assume a one in 1,000 risk of immediate death to prevent a future lethal smallpox infection, Tiferet Yisrael suggests that Halakhah recognizes the importance of disease prevention, equating it with treatments for active life-threatening disease. His halakhic analysis and assessment might permit a healthy volunteer such as Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial to achieve immunity from COVID-19. However, such a trial involves substantial risk without proven benefits. In addition, because Tiferet Yisrael bases his position on the Yerushalmi which obligates an individual to endanger himself to save someone who faces certain danger, Tiferet Yisrael might even allow Sam to participate in the absence of any personal benefit, for pure altruism to save humanity. Defining a Permissible Level of Risk Aharonim debate the exact level of risk the hayei sha'ah may incur. Ahiezer 2:16:6 cites Mishnat Hakhamim to permit a dangerous treatment for a safek shakul - a risk of death less than or equal to 50%. If the risk of death exceeds 50%, the hayei sha'ah may not receive the treatment. This is also the opinion of Tzitz Elieze r 10:25:5:5. If the majority of physicians endorse treatment, Ahiezer permits a risk greater than 50% and does not define the upper limit of permitted risk. Because any COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial would receive the prior approval of an overseeing body of physicians, Ahiezer might permit participation for a risk higher than 50%. Beit David Yoreh De'ah II:340 permits a hayei sha'ah to receive a treatment that causes death in 999 out of 1,000 patients. In 1961, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58, permitted a treatment in which the odds were more than 50% that it would cause death. However, in 1972 (Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 3:36), he modified his position, permitting only a safek shakul. He concludes that a hayei sha'ah who seeks medical treatment with a greater than 50% risk of death may rely on the more lenient position of Ahiezer and receive the dangerous therapy. How does Sam's participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial compare to the risks that these poskim cite? They address situations where the person is terminally ill and faces imminent death, but do not define the level of risk a healthy individual may incur. However, Tiferet Yisrael permits a healthy individual to undergo vaccination against smallpox with a risk of death of one in 1,000. For all adults age 20-29 infected with COVID-19, including those with comorbidities, virologists estimate a 1.1% risk of complications requiring hospitalization and 0.03% risk of death,[10] an approximation that might either overestimate or underestimate Sam's true risk. Sam, who suffers no comorbidities, might be at the low end of the participation risk. Furthermore, because Sam lives in an area with a large number of COVID-19 cases, he is already at high risk of infection; participation only minimally increases this. Should he become infected, he will receive state-of-the-art care, which might reduce his complications. In addition, if researchers identify an effective treatment, that treatment would further diminish his participation risk. With appropriate risk minimization (e.g., careful titration of viral dose, early diagnosis, and optimal medical care), Sam might face little, if any, additional risk related to experimental infection. Alternatively, Sam's risk of death might be higher than estimated because the vaccine or the strain of virus injected might increase the severity of infection or the incidence of lasting harm. In addition, because the virus is so new and follow-up of those infected limited, the long-term risks of COVID-19 infection are unknown and might be greater than anticipated. Even if Sam's risk from participating is higher than estimated, his danger of death is still well below the 50% threshold that the above poskim use and the 0.1% risk that Tifferet Yisrael permits for healthy individuals undergoing smallpox vaccination. Definition of Hayei Olam - What Benefits Justify Risk? The above discussion, which explored a hayei sha'ah's acceptable level of risk with regard to medical treatments, assumed that the goal of treatment is to achieve hayei olam, a long-term cure. Poskim disagree about whether one may undergo a dangerous therapy for any other purpose, such as prolonging life in the absence of a complete recovery or the relief of pain and symptoms. Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58 and 3:36 prohibits risky treatment that merely prolongs life in the absence of complete recovery. Rav Bleich offers a different perspective.[11] Quoting Ramban's Torat ha-Adam,[12] which derives from the phrase, "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" the principle that "we are not concerned with possible [loss of] hayei sha'ah in the face of more life (hayei tuva)," Rav Bleich interprets "hayei tuva" to mean more life, and concludes that Ramban would permit dangerous medical treatment to achieve a longer period of hayei sha'ah, even in the absence of a cure. Iggerot Moshe Yore De'ah II:36 prohibits dangerous treatment for pain relief alone. Rav Yaakov Emden, Mor u-Kezi'ah 328, writes that surgery for pain relief is not "hutar le-gamrei," categorically permitted, suggesting that under specific circumstances it might be allowed. Tzitz Eliezer 13:87 permits morphine for a dying patient, although morphine might hasten his death, because nothing torments man more than intractable pain. Thus, Tzitz Eliezer would argue, a hayei sha'ah may undergo dangerous treatment not just to achieve hayei olam but also to achieve hayei tuva, longer life or pain relief. What is the benefit to Sam of participating in the human vaccine challenge trial? Will participation give him hayei olam, hayei tuva, or some other non-life prolonging benefit? First, vaccination itself or infection with or without vaccination might yield hayei olam -- a long-term cure and permanent immunity to COVID-19, akin to Tiferet Yisrael's smallpox vaccine. However, it is possible that the vaccine or infection will only provide temporary immunity. Here, participation will not achieve hayei olam, but only hayei tuva, but revaccination to boost his immunity could yield hayei olam. Second, because Sam lives in a high-infection zone, he faces a real risk of becoming infected even if he does not participate. Participation guarantees Sam priority in the allocation of medical resources and the best medical care should he become infected. By participating, Sam decreases his risk of complications and death from infection. Better care could improve his medical outcome and increase his chances of surviving COVID-19, thus facilitating hayei olam. Furthermore, if he develops immunity, he can no longer infect his family. The possibility of achieving long-term or short-term immunity to COVID-19, better treatment if infected, and relieving anxiety over infecting others are direct benefits to Sam for participating in the trial. However, it is possible that participation will provide no benefit, direct or indirect, to Sam. Sam's ultimate motivation for participation, like that of the thousands of volunteers who have come forward to participate in these trials, is altruism, helping to discover an effective vaccine that will save millions of lives. May one undergo a dangerous treatment in order to save others? Incurring Risk to Save Others Citing Talmud Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426 obligates one to place himself in a possible danger to save the life of someone facing certain danger. In Shulhan Arukh, Rav Yosef Karo and Rama omit this requirement. Sema Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 explains that Shulhan Arukh and Rama follow Rambam, Rif, Rosh, and Tur, who also omit this obligation. Pithei Teshuvah Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 suggests that they omitted this obligation because it contradicts Talmud Bavli (Niddah 61a and Sanhedrin 73a) and Jewish law typically follows Talmud Bavli. Radbaz 3:627 (53) was asked if a foreign government demands that a Jew undergo removal of a limb, a procedure presumed not to endanger his life, to save the life of another Jew, may one do so. He answers that one who consents acts with midat hasidut, a degree of piety, but if amputation will endanger his life, he is a hasid shoteh, acting illogically by violating the commandment va-hai bahem (which Sanhedrin 74a understands to mean that mitzvot are to live by and not die by). Similarly, in in Radbaz 5 Lilshonot ha-Rambam 1:582 (218), he addresses whether one is obligated to save the life of a fellow Jew, he explains that if the rescuer faces a safek mukhra - a certain danger - he has no obligation to act. But if the odds are greater that he will save his friend without endangering himself, failure to rescue transgresses lo ta'amod al dam rei'ekha. Tiferet Yisrael bases his teshuvah permitting a healthy volunteer to undergo smallpox vaccination on Talmud Yerushalmi and Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which obligate a person to place himself in danger to save a drowning friend. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if one may endanger himself to rescue his friend from danger, he may certainly assume risk of vaccination to save himself and achieve long-term immunity. In fact, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:174:4 permits one to accept a possible danger if it will save someone else from a definite danger. Tzitz Eliezer 13:101 rules that one may participate in experimental therapy and donate blood to benefit others if physicians determine that participation is risk-free. We consider such participation a mitzvah. In this situation, however, physicians cannot determine the risk of Sam's participating in the human vaccine trial and cannot claim that the trial is without risk. In Yehaveh Da'at 3:84, Rav Ovadia Yosef prohibits treatment with a risk greater than 50% based on Radbaz's classification of a rescuer who endangers himself for a safek shakul as a hasid shoteh. Rav Ovadia Yosef states that the majority of Aharonim, including Eliyah Rabba 328:8, Netziv ha-Emek She'eilah Re'eh 147:4, Aruh Ha-shulkhan 426, Mishpat Kohen 143-2, Heikhal Yitzhak Orah Hayyim 3, and Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 1:145, support this position. However, he permits kidney donation and even considers it a mitzvah, because the risk to the donor is low; according to the physicians with whom he consulted, 99% of donors recover fully from the operation. Interestingly, like Rav Ovadia Yosef, ethicists point to kidney donation as a model for determining the level of risk one may accept to benefit others[13,14] and consider the risk of death from participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial equivalent to the risk of death from kidney donation.[15] Because the risk of death from participating in this trial is significantly less than 50% and is comparable to the risk of kidney donation, Halakhah would seem to permit Sam's altruistic enrollment to save others from certain death from the virus. In fact, Sam's participation, which has the potential to save not just one life, like a kidney donor, but millions, is not only permitted but meritorious. One might even argue that Sam is obligated to participate based on lo ta'amod al dam rei'ekha. Rav Asher Weiss in Minhat Asher 3:122 cites Ta'anit 18b as proof that an individual may endanger himself to save the community, and in doing so performs a great mitzvah. According to Rashi, Turyanus, a Roman official, accused the Jews of murdering the emperor's daughter. He threatened mass execution unless the guilty party confessed. To save the community, Lilianus and Pappus, falsely do so. Turyanos executes them and spares the community. Rav Weiss concludes that an individual who gives his life to save the community has a direct path to the Garden of Eden. He states that when a nation is at war, there are unique rules of pikuah nefesh, the obligation to save a life. To win, the nation requires the self-sacrifice of not only its soldiers, but all those who fill essential, life-saving roles, such as police officers, fire fighters, security guards, and physicians. In the midst of a pandemic that has infected 13,000,000 and led to the death of 500,000 worldwide, one may reasonably conclude that we are at war with COVID-19, and that Sam and the other volunteers for a human vaccine challenge trial are voluntary conscripts. Though Halakhah permits one to undergo risky treatment to achieve a long-term cure, poskim, including Tiferet Yisrael Yoma 8:3, do not obligate participation. If the chance that the treatment will succeed is greater than 50%, Iggerot Moshe in Yore De'ah 3:36 and Choshen Mishpat 2:74:5 Rav Bleich explains that assuming risk for a long-term cure is permitted but not obligatory, because we trust a person to do what is reasonable to safeguard his body from danger. For those who are risk averse, undertaking a dangerous treatment or participating in a human vaccine trial would be unreasonable, while for the less conservative, such as Sam, the risk is acceptable. Experimental Therapy in Halakhah The discussion about dangerous medical treatment applies to therapies with known medical benefits. How does Halakhah approach risks incurred for experimental therapy with no proven benefit? Ttitz Eliezer 13:101 limits participation in experimental treatment to trials that are risk-free. Rav Moshe Dov Welner in ha-Torah ve-haMedinah, VII-VIII (5716-5717), 314, prohibits participation in clinical trials that lack scientific basis. He addresses a situation where the physician has no idea how to treat a disease and decides to experiment on a dying patient because the patient will die anyway. He calls such a physician a terrorist. The scientific reality surrounding human vaccine trials is vastly different than this extreme example. While the exact benefits of participation - such as whether the vaccine confers immunity and whether it will eradicate COVID-19 - are unknown, these trials employ vaccines that have already shown promise in preliminary trials and undergone extensive review by governmental and international agencies that have approved their scientific merit as potential vaccines. Such trials would not qualify as acts of desperation, implemented because the patient is dying anyway. Minhat Shlomo 2:82:12 permits participation in medical research, classifying the battle against disease as a milhemet mitzvah, a necessary war. Today we do not have a king or beit din to declare a milhemet mitzvah against disease and obligate the healthy to take dangerous medicines to help find a cure. He writes that because recognized experts, our contemporary equivalent of a beit din or king, take great care to execute these studies, one may participate. He explains that participation qualifies as holeh lefanenu, the presence of an actual sick person before us, which is considered a fundamental halakhic requirement for defining a situation as pikuah nefesh. In Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De'ah 280, Rav Yehezkel Landau prohibited autopsies because they are for the benefit of future patients, not those who appear before us now, and thus fail to meet a strict definition of holeh lefanenu.[16] Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explains that those autopsies were performed exclusively to increase the physician's knowledge, so are not comparable to experimental therapy. Rav Auerbach believes that contemporary medical research qualifies as holeh lefanenu because those sick with these diseases are before us, and the treatments to be tested are before us. He considers participation in clinical trials safek hatzalat nefashot - possibly life-saving - and not merely an academic exercise to increase scientific knowledge. Human Vaccine Challenge Trials Recently, Rav Asher Weiss[17] directly addressed the permissibility of participating in such trials. Reiterating his position in Minhat Asher 3:101 that one may endanger oneself to perform an essential communal role such as serving as a police officer, rescue worker, or even judge who risks death threats, he permits young, healthy individuals to participate in COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trials in controlled environments because the risk of complications or death is low, especially for those who are young and lack comorbidities, and the trial can potentially save thousands of lives. He notes the concerns of Noda be-Yehuda[18] and Hatam Sofer,[19] who prohibited autopsies because such procedures failed to satisfy their halakhic definition of holeh lefanenu. Rav Weiss explains that even if we do not define participation as pikuah nefesh, overriding biblical and rabbinic prohibitions, it is a mitzvah since it will save millions of lives. This social good permits Sam to assume the small risk of participation. Furthermore, one cannot extrapolate from the autopsies of the Noda be-Yehuda to contemporary scientific reality. It is highly unlikely that autopsies performed two hundred years ago affected medical care. He writes, "verifying the efficacy of a vaccine would not be categorized as a benefit in the distant future, but rather as a great mitzvah that is, in fact, halakhically considered to be possibly life-saving." He rejects Rav Auerbach's classification of medical research as milhemet mitzvah because this designation obligates participation in medical research, and Rav Weiss believes that participation is not obligatory. Only wars fought against enemy armies qualify as milhamot mitzvah, not public dangers such as wild animals and diseases, to which only the laws of pikuach nefesh apply. Conclusion The halakhic decisions cited above, including perhaps even Radbaz, would seem to permit Sam's participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial, because a healthy individual may incur a small risk of death, comparable to the risk permitted for other acts of altruism such as kidney donation to achieve long-term immunity. In addition, the potential benefit to society is immeasurable, preventing the death and suffering of millions by halting the spread of this pandemic and ending the physical, psychological, and economic devastation of prolonged social distancing. Table 1 ... [Okay, I couldn't pass the summary table of who defines chayei sha'ah as how long to the digest. So, go check the URL for yourself! Skipping to the foonotes. -micha] ... [7] Shvut Yaakov 3:75, Pithei Teshuvah Yoreh De'ah 339:1, Gilyon Maharsha Yoreh De'ah 155:1, Binat Adam 73, 93, Binyan Tziyyon 111, Tiferet Yisrael Boaz, Yoma 8:3, Ahiezer 2:16:6, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58 and 3:36, and Tzitz Eliezer 4:13, all permit a hayei sha'ah to undergo risky medical treatment for cure. [8] Bleich, J.D., "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures," Tradition, 37, no.3 (2003): 76-100, [241]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23262430 . [9] Bleich, J.D. "Genetic Screening: Survey of Recent Halachic Periodical Literature," Tradition, 34, no.1 (2000): 63-87, [243]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23261641?seq=1 . [10] Verity, R. et al, "Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis," Lancet Infect. Dis. March 30, 2020, [245]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20 )30243-7/fulltext . [11] Bleich, J.D., "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures," Tradition, 37, no. 3 (2003): 94. [12] Kol Kitvei ha-Ramban, II, 38. [13] Miller, G., Joffe, S., "Limits to Research Risks," J. Med. Ethics 35, 445 (2009). [14] Resnik, D., "Limits on Risks for Healthy Volunteers in Biomedical Research," Theor. Med. Bioeth. 33, no. 2 (April, 2012): 137. [15] Verity, R. et al, "Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis," Lancet Infect. Dis. March 30, 2020, [251]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20 )30243-7/fulltext. [16] For a more detailed discussion of the definition of holeh lefanenu in Covid-19, see our earlier Lehrhaus essay, [253]https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/sharpening-the-definition-of-h oleh-lefanenu-the-diamond-princess-and-the-limits-of-quarantine/. [17] Rav Asher Weiss, "Experimental Treatments for Coronavirus," Mosaica Press (2020): 5-7. [18] Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De'ah, 210. [19] Hatam Sofer Yoreh De'ah, 336. From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Aug 20 14:43:28 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:43:28 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. Message-ID: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> << Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory...." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required." Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? >> See Igeros Moshe Even HaEzer Chelek 1 siman 48 and also (and particularly) Igeros Moshe Orech Chaim chelek 5 siman 37:12: ????? ???? ???? ????, ???? ?????. ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????. ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????. ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? (???? ?"? ?"?), ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????. ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????. The covering of the head before her husband is not necessary. Since the prohibition of uncovering the head is only in the marketplace. And even at the time of her period, there is no prohibition in her house before her husband and children. And there is a hidur to do like Kimchit (Yoma 47a) but we have not heard that there are any modest like this and even in the earlier generations. And in the time of the Tanaim the married women were not accustomed so except for individuals like Kimchit. Note specifically *but we have not heard that there are any modest like this, and even in the earlier generations*. A reasonably translation of this is surely: neither Rav Moshe's wife, nor his mother did this. <> I think it depends on your community. In a modern orthodox community in which most women are not covering their hair when they go out in a public place either, I suspect many if not most of the few women who do cover their hair when they go out absolutely rely on this position, and sometimes more lenient ones inside their homes (ie only cover their hair when they go out, as per the pshat of the mishna & gemora in Ketubos as referred to by Rav Moshe, and not when in their home regardless of who is there). In the Satmar community where they shave their heads, no, I am pretty sure no women are relying on this leniency. Within the communities on the spectrum between these two poles, I suspect it varies, getting more likely as you move towards the more "modern" end and less likely as you move towards the more charedi and certainly Chassidic end. But Rav Moshe never having heard of it in his and in previous generations is a notable data point. Regards Chana From mcohen at touchlogic.com Thu Aug 20 17:04:40 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:04:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. In-Reply-To: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> Thank you for your comments RCL wrote... Note specifically *but we have not heard that there are any modest like this, and even in the earlier generations*. A reasonably translation of this is surely: neither Rav Moshe's wife, nor his mother did this. True; although I would like to hear what the Feinstein children testify about their mothers hanhaga.. RCL wrote... Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the presence of your father, husband and son. R moshe as quoted only mentions husband/children. Where/how do we expand this to her brother? if it was bc of the simple pshat of the Mishna & gemora in Ketubos, then everyone should be ok inside (not just brother/family) and if the heter is based on inside - is uncovered hair allowed when swimming w husband/children alone (but outside)? (it is illogical to suggest that there is a continual obligation to cover her hair outside, even when a permissible situation such as alone or only with other women) Mc From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Aug 20 17:56:42 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 01:56:42 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. In-Reply-To: <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> References: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <000001d67755$efd44600$cf7cd200$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMC writes: <> Actually, this wasn't me, this was the yoetzet website you quoted. <> I assume that the reasoning behind the website's psak is based on with whom she is allowed to have yichud. Rav Moshe also doesn't specifically mention father, and yet the logic of the website including father as automatically on the same page as husband and children would seem to be driven by the unity of halacha regarding yichud. The yichud status of brothers is a bit more complex, as a certain level of yichud is allowed, but not completely, and hence they would seem the logical extension to question, and one could understand a view that, to the extent yichud is allowed, so should this be. >Mc Regards Chana From akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com Fri Aug 21 03:06:29 2020 From: akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 06:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > I'd love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - > machshava balma (random thought?) which has no halachic significance, > amira (specific oral articulation) which is completely binding and > amen/specific machshava (really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat > indeterminate (not welcome in a brisker world?) It seems to me that what you're really asking is: How/why does "Shomea k'oneh" work? Why is it that if I listen to someone say something, and we both have the correct "specific machshava", it is considered "as if" I had said it myself? And, just as importantly, to what *extent* is it considered as if I said it myself? As an illustration of this principle, R' Danny Schoemann cited the Kitzur in 127:3 > Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday > following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi > shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient... > Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, > you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself. I'd like to offer another illustration: If a person is saying Shemoneh Esreh when the shul is at Kaddish or Kedusha, Mechaber 104:7 writes that "He should be quiet and pay attention to the shatz, and it will be like he is answering." And the Mishne Berura 104:28 explains: "It will be like he is answering for the purpose of being thereby yotzay for Kaddish and Kedusha, but nevertheless it is not considered a hefsek." The halacha of Shomea K'oneh seems to allow us to have it both ways: We have *effectively* said something, yet not *actually* said anything. [Email #2. -micha] Addendum to what I wrote a few minutes ago: I know that Shomea K'Oneh is effective even when one does not actually respond "Amen". After all, a precise translation of the phrase would NOT be "listening is like answering Amen", but is rather "mere listening is like repeating it yourself." And yet, I seem to recall that there are some specific cases where the halacha differs depending on whether the person actually said "Amen" aloud, vs where he merely listened with all the correct intentions. Does anyone else know of such cases? Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 21:33:33 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:33:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: To prevent the spread of COVID see https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the shofar? Does it affect the sound? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Fri Aug 21 04:57:08 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:57:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21/8/20 12:33 am, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > To prevent the spread of COVID see > https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ > > What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the > shofar? Does it affect the sound? The OU says it doesn't appear to. https://www.ou.org/covid19/ 9. Shofar: An appropriate precaution during shofar blowing would be to place a surgical mask over the wider end of the shofar, as this does not appear to alter the sound of the shofar blast. Some may point the shofar out an open window or door, or near and towards the front wall or aron kodesh, facing away from the congregation. A single shofar should not be used by multiple people, and no barrier should be placed between the shofar and the mouth of the one blowing the shofar. Poskim have addressed when and how much to sound the shofar where the time in shul is seriously limited -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 12:07:00 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 15:07:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 07:33:33AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ > What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the > shofar? Does it affect the sound? As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does not affect the sound. But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer without specifying which kind(s) of masks they experimented with. The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else with sensitive hearing in the minyan, you need them to say they don't hear a difference if they personally wish to be yotzei.) But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use. Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices. Chodesh Tov! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but add justice, don't complain about heresy, Author: Widen Your Tent but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Sat Aug 22 17:47:42 2020 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 20:47:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:45 PM Micha Berger wrote: >> What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the >> shofar? Does it affect the sound? > As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does > not affect the sound. > But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer ... > The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound > of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else > with sensitive hearing in the minyan... > But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the > resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use. > Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from > the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices. I blow shofar for my shul. I have placed a surgical mask on the shofar and blew the shofar for the Rav both on and off without him looking at the shofar. He did not hear a real difference and I concurred. You can get a different sound from the shofar depending on how you place it on your lips and the amount of air used. Rav Shulman of YU / YI Midwood suggests blowing under your tallit or at a door without a mask on the shofar. From zev at sero.name Sun Aug 23 01:04:56 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 04:04:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does > not affect the sound. No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound, and is therefore permissible. I have no idea whether they're right, but this is what they say, and they know the halacha, so I assume they've done whatever is necessary to determine the metzius. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 06:11:31 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 09:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200823131130.GA6504@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 04:04:56AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does >> not affect the sound. > No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound... As per the rest of the post you're quoting: My comment was that they take it for granted that the mask(s) they tested with are indicative of the mask a member shul may be using. I would not. (Had I been in the OU, I would have been more specific about which brand mask.) But I'm not questioning their pesaq that listening on the other side of the mask is the original qol and not a "qol havarah". ("Hatoqeia lesokh habor, mishnah RH, on top of 27b in Vilna Bavli) I therefore isolated their halachic stance which from their depiction of the mtzi'us. Because I wanted to raise the question whether, even leshitasam, is a piano tuner or other person with sensitive hearing can hear a difference the rest of us can't, would he be yotzei. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect http://www.aishdas.org/asp painting? It's easy. Author: Widen Your Tent Make yourself perfect and then just paint - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 19:45:48 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 22:45:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault Message-ID: . At the Eglah Arufa, the zekeinim declare, "Our hands did not spill this blood! Our eyes did not see!" I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: > The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly > responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any > stranger from our city without food (so that he might have > been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or > without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected > on a dangerous road)." How can the zekeinim have been so sure? Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed? We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident? I considered the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas Orchim organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never will happen. (The three listed there, if I read it correctly, are Ben Sorer Umoreh, Ir Hanidachas, and a house getting tzaraas.) But it's *not* listed there, so I suppose it might have happened, or at least, *could* happen. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Sun Aug 23 06:35:32 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 13:35:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed? > > We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident? > > ??????- I?m not sure these are Mutually exclusive. Perhaps they are saying that the fault is not systemic and of course we have to see where we fell short and try to improve on it Kt Joel RichTHIS 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 zev at sero.name Sun Aug 23 07:39:22 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 10:39:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22/8/20 10:45 pm, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I considered?the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only > done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the > Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas?Orchim > organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever > occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been > listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never > will happen. The answer seems very simple. Not even the most thorough hachnassas orchim will ever prevent all murders, because most crimes are *not* committed out of need. The idea that the victim was actually a robber who was killed in legitimate self-defence, but in a further plot twist he only robbed out of desperate need, and had the city's elders done their job this would never have happened, is very far-fetched. The overwhelming likelihood is that he was an innocent person who was killed by a robber who was acting out of greed or sheer wickedness, as *most* robbers do. The Zekeinim are merely ruling out that far-fetched scenario in which they would bear some responsibility. And if you ask why, in that case, do they have to go through this whole rigmarole to rule it out, I suggest that it's so that this possibility is always on their minds, and they do their utmost to make sure that in the unlikely even that a body is ever found they should be *able* to make this declaration. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Aug 23 06:27:37 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:27:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Going swimming with your sister Message-ID: I always thought that brothers and sisters (even teenagers) could go mixed swimming privately just the immediate family because we assume that there are no hirhurim among immediate family members. However, I listened to the Headlines podcast where he interviewed an Israeli posek from Machon Puah who claimed that it was forbidden. Anyone have any sources? Piskei Halacha from modern poskim? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Aug 23 09:24:06 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:24:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee Message-ID: From https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-will-be-travelling-and-would-like-to-know-if-there-is-a-concern-of-bishul-akum-with-coffee-a-consumers-question I will be travelling and would like to know if there is a concern of bishul akum with coffee? (A consumer's question) OU Kosher Certification Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel. Raw coffee beans are inedible, a... See the above URL for more. From zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 24 09:27:09 2020 From: zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com (Zalman Alpert) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 12:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As > previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh > al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel. > Raw coffee beans are inedible, a... Great example of what DR Hayym Soloveitchik wrote about in his seminal essay Rupture and Reconstruction. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Aug 24 10:49:59 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 13:49:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200824174959.GF11765@aishdas.org> Bishul aku"m only applies to foods that are olim al shulchan melakhim. Qiddush can be made on chamar medinah. Seems to be a lower standard, when it comes to drinks, as the masses are unlikely to be pickier than their kings. The AhS (OC 272:12) ranks yayin and then sheikhar ahead of other drinks, but does include sweetened tea among the things one may make qiddush on. Similarly, IM OC 2:75. (Likely an indication of the price of sugar, RYME names tei matoq in particular as chamar medinah, not just writing "tei". Another measure of their poverty is his discussing their general use of raisin wine, as a reason why they were allowed to choose sheikhar even if wine was available. Meaning, I don't know if the AhS would allow this choice for us today.) But I am wondering benogei'ah to our original topic is whether it's possible to formulate a consistent shitah in which coffee can not be used for Qiddush and also cannot be used if bishul aku"m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message http://www.aishdas.org/asp that God is not yet discouraged with Author: Widen Your Tent humanity. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabindranath Tagore From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Aug 24 11:18:23 2020 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 14:18:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: I have an even better solution. Have the baal tekiah get a Covid test now and then a couple days before R?H and if both tests are negative and he is in good health, the chances of him having the virus is almost zero. From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 24 16:08:22 2020 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 7:02 PM Cantor Wolberg wrote: > Have the baal tekiah get a Covid test now and then a couple days before > R"H and if both tests are negative and he is in good health, the > chances of him having the virus is almost zero. It is possible to catch the virus after getting tested. Most tests take days to come back; by then you are contagious. Only if you test positive for antibodies, do you know that you have had the virus. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Aug 24 18:33:48 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:33:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee Message-ID: . According to the OU at the link posted, > Nonetheless, the Pri Chodosh writes that brewed coffee need > not be bishul Yisroel, since coffee is primarily water, and > water does not require bishul Yisroel. I have difficulty following that logic. Granted that if one looks at the ingredients, coffee is indeed primarily water. But why is that fact more relevant than the importance that society gives to this beverage? R' Micha Berger pointed out that Chamar Medinah "seems to be a lower standard" than Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim, and I'd agree. But I think it's irrelevant, because it is obvious to me that coffee is Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim. The dessert at a state dinner would not be s'mores and Slurpees; it would be elegant cakes and coffee. I suspect that for some reason (possibly the fact that Bishul Akum has little to do with kashrus and much to do with limiting our social contact with non-Jews), the rabbis went out of their way to find leniencies for it, and drinks is an example of such a leniency; I suspect that it never occurred to Chazal to extend the gezera beyond solid foods. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Aug 26 09:49:29 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:49:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Honoring Step Parents & More Message-ID: Please see https://vosizneias.com/2020/08/26/honoring-step-parents-more/ I found this to be a very interesting article YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 23:07:38 2020 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:07:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: It seems more reasonable to blow under the tallis without a mask. After a while, the tokea has to shake water out of the shofar. Slightly challenging with a mask on it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 23:11:27 2020 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:11:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Davening_at_home_on_Yamim_Nora=E2=80=99im?= Message-ID: This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. We will miss out on much of the ?experience? of the piyutim. Does anyone know of guidelines for what to do at home, such as part of chazarat haShatz? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 05:57:18 2020 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:57:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im Message-ID: RChaim Tafel wrote: > This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul > for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. > We will miss out on much of the "experience" of > the piyutim. Does anyone know of guidelines for > what to do at home, such as part of chazarat haShatz? Say them all except for the few you should only ever say when you are shatz, for example the netilot reshut, like all the misod chakhamim unevonim lines and such as the Ochila (which really, in my opinion, despite the popular tunes, the tzibbur should never say, as it is the netilat reshut for the shatz to insert the seder ha'avodah). Also skip obviously hineni he'ani mima'as, as it is for the shatz. Also skip the E-lohein vE-lohei Avoteinu heyei 'im pifiyot (which in my opinion the shatz shouldn't ever say, as it is a prayer for the shatz' success recited by the public). Finally, obviously whenever the cachzor calls for reciting 13 middot, depending on the poskim you follow, either skip or recite with te'amim. Otherwise I see no reason why you couldn'T beautifully sing your way through the entire machzor. But don't use one of these butchered machzorim, go for the real, unabbreviated, full and complete Rdelheim. (I am assuming you're ashkenazi, because Sefardi piyutim are altogether different). [Email #2. -micha] By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata Hu E-loheinu. In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. I am obviously totally tolerant, but it is still poetically wrong, objectively so. ;-) Ketiva vachatima tova, -- Mit freundlichen Gren, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Aug 28 06:14:15 2020 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 07:53 AM 8/28/2020, Chaim Tate wrote: >This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul for Rosh Hashanah and >Yom Kippur. >We will miss out on much of the ?experience? of the piyutim. >Does anyone know of guidelines for what to do at home, such as part of >chazarat haShatz? The YI of Midwood sent out an email saying that no piyyutim will be said during the davening on the Yomim Noraim. After all in many shuls the davening on Shabbos has been curtailed due to concerns about the virus. (no speeches and no singing). In some shuls people have been told to daven up to Baruch She'omer before coming to shul. So you won't be missing anything if other shuls follow the YI of Midwood! Personally I hope they do. Long davening can lead to the spread of the virus even with proper social distancing. Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said the it is better to daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more that 15 minutes , IIRC. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From crclbas at aol.com Fri Aug 28 06:49:54 2020 From: crclbas at aol.com (BenS) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:49:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Yomim Tovim References: <2007338277.6646156.1598622594128.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2007338277.6646156.1598622594128@mail.yahoo.com> The RCA And? ?YU have sent suggestions for shuls who want to skip certain piyutim. ASk your Rov for these guidelines. This can also be used for those who must daven at home. But be sure to arrange for Shofar on the second day. Minimum of 30 Kolos are needed. Shonoh Tovah!! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Aug 30 06:53:54 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 13:53:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos Message-ID: Please see https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-want-to-order-a-new-cell-phone-and-am-not-particular-when-it-will-arrive-am-i-permitted-to-place-an-order-online-if-the-website-indicates-the-package-will-arrive-on-saturday/?category&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shsh%20Ki%20Teitzei%205780%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=32470835&spUserID=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&spJobID=1764350018&spReportId=MTc2NDM1MDAxOAS2 YL I want to order a new cell phone and am not particular when it will arrive. Am I permitted to place an order online if the website indicates the package will arrive on Saturday? | OU Kosher Certification The issue here is whether arranging a delivery for Shabbos constitutes Amirah li?akum (instructing a non-Jew to perform melacha on Shabbos), which is prohibited. One might assume that this is analogous to handing a letter to a non-Jew on Friday and a... oukosher.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Aug 29 19:57:19 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 22:57:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d Message-ID: . In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? This may happen elsewhere too, but this case stands out because the form changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out to Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the contrast? If the third person was reasonable in the first part, why switch to the first person later on? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Aug 31 13:58:44 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-want-to-order-a-new-cell-phone-and-am-not-particular-when-it-will-arrive-am-i-permitted-to-place-an-order-online-if-the-website-indicates-the-package-will-arrive-on-saturday > One may not place an order if the delivery will definitely take place > on Shabbos. For example, one cannot send a package with UPS or FedEx > on Friday and select ?next day delivery?. Similarly, one cannot order > a refrigerator or washing machine from a store and arrange for a > Saturday delivery. I disagree with the author on this. Since they could choose to deliver after Shabbos and still fulfil their obligation, you are not telling them to deliver on Shabbos. In the winter this could actually happen. But even in the summer, when you can be fairly sure they won't do that, that's their choice not yours; if they did arrive after Shabbos you would have no right to complain, so you are not asking them to work on Shabbos. Only if they guarantee that "all deliveries will be made during business hours" or something similar would you not be allowed to order a Saturday delivery. And even then, if there's a space for delivery notes, and you write that late night delivery will be OK, that should be enough to permit it, even if you can be fairly sure it won't change anything. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Sep 1 06:53:18 2020 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:53:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > > From: Akiva Miller > > In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today > to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) > > Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > This may happen elsewhere too, I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the G-d of Avraham, etc. Therefore, the layman refers to the G-d of the Kohane, whose biblical role is to teach of Hashem and His Torah and therefore conceptualized Hashem more accurately. (I would have to concede that at first sight this does not work in cases where the person bringing the Bikkurim is actually greater than the Kohane. One can answer that it's a matter of *lo plug, *using a fixed formula for everyone at all times, following the normal situation. Or I would modify my explanation to say that the Kohane may not necessarily have a higher conceptualization but, through his avodah, a unique one not shared by others, which is relevant to the Bikkurim bringer in his role as such.) but this case stands out because the form > changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out to > Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the contrast?... > I think the above explanation works to explain this. In fact, note that the farmer is referring to the G-d of our "ancestors," meaning G-d as understood by the avos. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 12:29:01 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:29:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901192901.GA18013@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:53:18AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > This may happen elsewhere too, > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > G-d of Avraham, etc... I would have written something very similar, if RAM's email weren't still flagged "to do" in my email box when RZL's came in. However, I wouldn't have used the word "hasagah". I would have talked about the need to list "E-lokei Avraham", "E-lokai Yitzchaq" and "E-lokai Yaaqov" separately. To me, it speaks to the idea that the avos each had distinct relationships with the Borei. The "G-d of Avraham" was a different relationship than the G-d Yitzchaq "had" (kevayakhol). I don't know how RZL meant the word "hasagah", but to me it speaks to knowing *about* something. As in greater people have greater understandings of what G-d is. I would instead has said that "E-lokekha" is about the G-d the kohein has time to relate to more constantly than the farmer does. And it might also make the Vidui a statement about the farmer's relationship with G-d. Rather than who has more relationship, but about kidn of relationship. After all, the kohein may be learning, teaching and doing avodah all day, but the farmer teams up with G-d and relies on G-d to produce his crop. That's the point of the vidui -- that the G-d of Yetzias Mitzrayim gets credit for more day-to-day things my success. Something a kohein may only get more vicariously. So, he's saying to the kohein, "G-d is not only how you relate to Him from your ivory tower -- 'Your G-d', realize He also is intimately involved in my life and everyday life." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Interesting quote my signature generator chose from the perspective of being this close to the end of 5780. (Although we must remember, we are likely the first generation for whom life is normally so wonderful, this year qualified as a notably "bad" one.) -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 15:54:36 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901225436.GC18013@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:30:40PM -0400, Ken Bloom wrote: > Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one > should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in > finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. I'll give you "or elsewhere". Here's what I do. 1- During the year, I try to keep a cheshbon hanefesh. Laziness and momentum being what it is, that means that I usually have a journal of the decisions and reactions of a few 1 to 2 month stretches during the year. So, something I do early in Elul is review those, see patterns, what changed during the gaps... And trying to compensate changes because I was just focused on different things in different parts of the year. I then try to mentally fill in the gaps, as I can. And then I make a list of those issues in my reactions, decisions and actions that seem to have recurred a lot. It's often not the issues I was thinking I was failing at before I looked through notes. For that matter, even if you "just" keep a diary of your responses to the week -- not what happened to you, but how you responded to it -- from now to RH would give more insight to what habits and middos might really need the most attention. And to make that list, I try for a list of 2 to 4 items that both need the most attention and yet balanced with things I can actually tackle. For example, I have a long-running battle with ka'as. But it may not be the chink in the armor most ready to move. I might want to work on my frustration threshold, noting that my temper is very often the sum of frustration plus having someone I can pin blame on. And the plan has to be incremental. Not "starting YK I never will..." or "will always", but "starting YK I will take the first step to... which is..." For exmple, not expressing frustration in a given set of situations. Or maybe right after work for the first hour I'm home. Or whatever. 2- So much for correcting past mistakes. My other step is something Bank of America mislabeled Hoshin Planning that I adapted for life. https://www.aishdas.org/asp/hoshin-plan 2a- Find a Mission Statement At this point, I have a mission statement I aspire to live by. The first year, I didn't. I picked a quote from a sefer that at the time (and still) really moved me. Look for something from a seifer (including the siddur) that sums up life's mission for you. Is it about deveiqus? And if about deveiqus -- what does that mean to you? Knowledge (as per the Rambam)? Experiencing the Divine? Having a relationship with Hashem? Partnering with Him in His Work -- and what is His Work? Or maybe you see it in terms of sheleimus or temimus. But then, what is a person supposed to be, that you can talk about being more perfect at being one? Is it emulating Hashem? Or bein adam lachaveiro? Or maybe you're on another page altogether -- you see the Torah's mission for your life in terms of Jewish Nationhood, or humanity. And I realize many of those will yield different phrasing of nearly the same answer. But only nearly the same. There could be situations where connotations matter and have a nafqa mina lemaaseh. But in any case, it has to be moving and inspiring based on the way HQBH made you. In short -- a sentence or two about how you see what the Torah is telling you to be at this point in your life. After the first year, you tweak it and revise it as you change. 2b- Drilling down A Mission Statement is pointless if it doesn't have a way to influence action. In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for the firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could help reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division. His group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc... The idea is that there is an individual programmer like myself can be shown how my program fits in the team's goal, the group's goal and so on up to the firm's goal as written up in the Mission Statement. Similarly life's Mission Statement. We can divide it and subdivide it into managable lists. Maybe three bullet items as top-level goals to make the mission statament happen. And 2-4 each for each of those goals to make subgoals and so on. The idea is to get to the point that when you decide to go to the kitchen to get a cup of coffee, you have a way to relate that decision to the approach to living al pi haTorah that you framed for yourself. Let me give an example, taken from the above blog page. Since I wrote a book based on R Shimon's haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher, the quote would be no surprise. For that matter, ch. 2 is titled "Mission Statement" and is a collection of thoughts about the openining sentence of the haqdamah. See the first paragraph of the copy in Widen Your Tent sec 1.1, pg 45 of the book or pg 4 of https://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf#page=4 So, my orignal mission statement translates to (it is important to be in first person singular): [My] greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that [I] walk in His ways. Now I can divide that into three subgoals: - Having a connection to G-d - Internalizing His Will - Being a conduit of Hashem's Good into the lives of others. Internalizing His will, for example, was first subdivided into - Daily learning (which is what drives projects like AhS Yomi) - Daily Mussar work (like what I'm describing in this post), and - Regular in-depth learning -- chavrusos, shiurim, etc... Notice at this point I can start filling in things I can do this year. What learning? Which shiurim? As in part 1 -- which middos and what are the first months' exercises to chip away at them. (And buying a pretty new notebook. Somehow I do best at cheshbon hanefesh when I have a kewl new toy to do it with.) Hopefully, by month end when this "Spiritual Hoshin Plan" is done, I can pause in the middle of the workday and be able to say for myself that I'm putting up with this irate trader on the phone (I work for a Hedge Fund) so that I can pay for tuition (goal 3.2.4.2.5 or some-such), I can develop my personal creativity (as per 1.2... as being in the image of the Creator is something I view as a Mussar goal), etc.. And thereby give sanctity to an otherwise mundane (and stressfull) activity. And then every year things shift. Both in how I look at the world and in what are the pressing issues requiring more attention. Where parenting sits in the hierarchy was very different when I started than now that my youngest is a teenager. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. http://www.aishdas.org/asp It preserves health, promotes convalescence, Author: Widen Your Tent and helps us cope with adversity. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 12:46:48 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:46:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901194648.GB18013@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:45:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In > the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: >> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly >> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any >> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have >> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or >> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected >> on a dangerous road)." > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed > through unnoticed? Does it say that unnoticed strangers are included? The gemara (Sotah 46b) says (original at https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.9 ): Would it cross our minds that BD were murderers? Rather [they are saying]: He did not come to us and we dismissed him without food. We didn't see him and leave him without accompaniment. My translation matches the TMS's, minus their parenthetic comments. (Which I will now assume is the author's insertions, rather than part of the medrash.) The two phrases "lo ba leyadeinu" and "vera'inhu" seem to me to mean the BD are saying that the didn't neglect anyone they knew of. That not knowing the person was in town would be one of the reasons they wouldn't be guilty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the http://www.aishdas.org/asp better if possible, and of changing himself for Author: Widen Your Tent the better if necessary. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 05:00:31 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos Message-ID: . Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day away. I think it is assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. In contrast, if I request Monday delivery, that would be okay, even though I know that they'll be working for me on Shabbos, because it was their choice to work on Saturday rather than Sunday. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 07:11:20 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:11:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:00:31AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? Well, if there isn't a contracted delivery date of Shabbos, then it's their choice whether to do melakhah for you on Shabbos, Friday or Sunday. The package could sit around in a transfer facility for 25 hours while they deal with more urgent packages if it's not the delivery date. The choice is theirs. But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. I guess in the case of (eg) 3 day delivery, since it wouldn't violate the contract to get it there in 2, someone might argue that you aren't asking them to do the delivery on Shabbos. But I don't know if mutar alternatives matter even when they're implausible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Sep 2 11:46:49 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:46:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66cf413b-bbfa-c02e-885f-8a8bb7e152ce@sero.name> On 2/9/20 8:00 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day > away. I think it is?assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know > that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. I agree, *if* you know where it's coming from, and that it's not bich'dei sheyei'asu without working on Shabbos. But in the general case you don't know that, and I don't see why you have to worry about it just on spec. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 17:45:46 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:45:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said that it is better to daven a > little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that > selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more than 15 > minutes, IIRC. It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time that's been taken from them. Much more important is the speed at which it is said. If the length of time would remain constant, but pages were skipped so that the rest could be said carefully and attentively, THAT'S what Chazal meant by "better to daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Sep 2 13:49:48 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:49:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. ------------------------------- And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's Saturday delivery and you say nothing? KVCT 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 akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 18:08:38 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:08:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: . In the thread "Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im", R' Arie Folger wrote: > By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper > recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused > wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata > Hu E-loheinu. > > In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to > read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next > line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the > opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, > so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the > proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. I can see where some people might read the above, and feel that Rabbi Folger is being subjective and arbitrary in his choices of "proper" and "wrong". I had my brain all psyched up to spend the next hour or so writing a post to explain how he is objectively correct, and then I remembered that we covered this ground four years ago. Anyone who wants to learn more about how the recitation of these piyutim got messed up is strongly invited to review the thread "conservatism in davening" at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CONSERVATISM%20IN%20DAVENING Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mzeldman2 at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 00:33:32 2020 From: mzeldman2 at gmail.com (Moshe Zeldman) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 10:33:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If one should not say ?starting YK I will never...?, then how does that fit with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the vidui is saying ?and I will never do X again?? It sounds difficult to read into the Rambam that he means ?I?m still going to be doing X but I have a plan to eventually stop? On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 4:12 wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > > avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/ > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms > > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Hashem your G-d (Zvi Lampel) > > 2. Re: Hashem your G-d (Micha Berger) > > 3. Re: What to do in Elul? (Micha Berger) > > 4. Re: It's not our fault (Micha Berger) > > 5. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Akiva Miller) > > 6. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Micha Berger) > > 7. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Zev Sero) > > 8. Re: Davening at home on Yamim Noraim (Akiva Miller) > > 9. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Rich, Joel) > > 10. Re: conservatism in davening (Akiva Miller) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:53:18 -0400 > > From: Zvi Lampel > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , > > Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d > > Message-ID: > > < > CAPxEyabfrsb8kDLQzd7BTYpcZcQqOcyaDrjdZbyW8pD-K46QbA at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > > > > > > > > From: Akiva Miller > > > > > > In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today > > > to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) > > > > > > Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > > > > > This may happen elsewhere too, > > > > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher > > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers > > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > > G-d of Avraham, etc. Therefore, the layman refers to the G-d of the Kohane, > > whose biblical role is to teach of Hashem and His Torah and therefore > > conceptualized Hashem more accurately. > > > > (I would have to concede that at first sight this does not work in > > cases where the person bringing the Bikkurim is actually greater than the > > Kohane. One can answer that it's a matter of *lo plug, *using a fixed > > formula for everyone at all times, following the normal situation. Or I > > would modify my explanation to say that the Kohane may not necessarily have > > a higher conceptualization but, through his avodah, a unique one not shared > > by others, which is relevant to the Bikkurim bringer in his role as such.) > > > > but this case stands out because the form > > > changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out > to > > > Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the > contrast?... > > > > > > > I think the above explanation works to explain this. In fact, note that the > > farmer is referring to the G-d of our "ancestors," meaning G-d as > > understood by the avos. > > > > Zvi Lampel > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200901/89f8687e/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:29:01 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller , Zvi Lampel > > > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d > > Message-ID: <20200901192901.GA18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:53:18AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > > >> Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > > > > > This may happen elsewhere too, > > > > > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are > higher > > > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and > refers > > > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > > > G-d of Avraham, etc... > > > > I would have written something very similar, if RAM's email weren't still > > flagged "to do" in my email box when RZL's came in. > > > > However, I wouldn't have used the word "hasagah". I would have talked about > > the need to list "E-lokei Avraham", "E-lokai Yitzchaq" and "E-lokai Yaaqov" > > separately. > > > > To me, it speaks to the idea that the avos each had distinct relationships > > with the Borei. The "G-d of Avraham" was a different relationship than > > the G-d Yitzchaq "had" (kevayakhol). > > > > I don't know how RZL meant the word "hasagah", but to me it speaks to > knowing > > *about* something. As in greater people have greater understandings of what > > G-d is. > > > > I would instead has said that "E-lokekha" is about the G-d the kohein has > > time to relate to more constantly than the farmer does. > > > > And it might also make the Vidui a statement about the farmer's > > relationship with G-d. Rather than who has more relationship, but about > > kidn of relationship. > > > > After all, the kohein may be learning, teaching and doing avodah all > > day, but the farmer teams up with G-d and relies on G-d to produce his > > crop. That's the point of the vidui -- that the G-d of Yetzias Mitzrayim > > gets credit for more day-to-day things my success. Something a kohein > > may only get more vicariously. > > > > So, he's saying to the kohein, "G-d is not only how you relate to Him > > from your ivory tower -- 'Your G-d', realize He also is intimately > > involved in my life and everyday life." > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger If you're going through hell > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. > > Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > PS: Interesting quote my signature generator chose from the perspective > > of being this close to the end of 5780. (Although we must remember, we > > are likely the first generation for whom life is normally so wonderful, > > this year qualified as a notably "bad" one.) > > > > -- > > Micha Berger If you're going through hell > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. > > Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:54:36 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: avodah at aishdas.org, Ken Bloom > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? > > Message-ID: <20200901225436.GC18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:30:40PM -0400, Ken Bloom wrote: > > > Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what > one > > > should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in > > > finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. > > > > I'll give you "or elsewhere". Here's what I do. > > > > 1- > > > > During the year, I try to keep a cheshbon hanefesh. Laziness and momentum > > being what it is, that means that I usually have a journal of the decisions > > and reactions of a few 1 to 2 month stretches during the year. > > > > So, something I do early in Elul is review those, see patterns, what > > changed during the gaps... And trying to compensate changes because I > > was just focused on different things in different parts of the year. > > I then try to mentally fill in the gaps, as I can. And then I make a > > list of those issues in my reactions, decisions and actions that seem > > to have recurred a lot. It's often not the issues I was thinking I was > > failing at before I looked through notes. > > > > For that matter, even if you "just" keep a diary of your responses to the > > week -- not what happened to you, but how you responded to it -- from now > > to RH would give more insight to what habits and middos might really need > > the most attention. > > > > And to make that list, I try for a list of 2 to 4 items that both need the > > most attention and yet balanced with things I can actually tackle. For > > example, I have a long-running battle with ka'as. But it may not be > > the chink in the armor most ready to move. I might want to work on my > > frustration threshold, noting that my temper is very often the sum of > > frustration plus having someone I can pin blame on. > > > > And the plan has to be incremental. Not "starting YK I never will..." > > or "will always", but "starting YK I will take the first step to... > > which is..." > > > > For exmple, not expressing frustration in a given set of situations. > > Or maybe right after work for the first hour I'm home. Or whatever. > > > > 2- > > > > So much for correcting past mistakes. My other step is something > > Bank of America mislabeled Hoshin Planning that I adapted for life. > > > > https://www.aishdas.org/asp/hoshin-plan > > > > 2a- Find a Mission Statement > > > > At this point, I have a mission statement I aspire to live by. > > > > The first year, I didn't. I picked a quote from a sefer that at the time > > (and still) really moved me. Look for something from a seifer (including > > the siddur) that sums up life's mission for you. Is it about deveiqus? > > And if about deveiqus -- what does that mean to you? Knowledge (as per > > the Rambam)? Experiencing the Divine? Having a relationship with Hashem? > > Partnering with Him in His Work -- and what is His Work? Or maybe you see > > it in terms of sheleimus or temimus. But then, what is a person supposed > > to be, that you can talk about being more perfect at being one? Is it > > emulating Hashem? Or bein adam lachaveiro? Or maybe you're on another > > page altogether -- you see the Torah's mission for your life in terms > > of Jewish Nationhood, or humanity. > > > > And I realize many of those will yield different phrasing of nearly the > same > > answer. But only nearly the same. There could be situations where > connotations > > matter and have a nafqa mina lemaaseh. But in any case, it has to be moving > > and inspiring based on the way HQBH made you. > > > > In short -- a sentence or two about how you see what the Torah is telling > > you to be at this point in your life. > > > > After the first year, you tweak it and revise it as you change. > > > > 2b- Drilling down > > > > A Mission Statement is pointless if it doesn't have a way to influence > > action. > > > > In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for the > > firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could help > > reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division. His > > group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc... The idea is that > > there is an individual programmer like myself can be shown how my program > > fits in the team's goal, the group's goal and so on up to the firm's goal > > as written up in the Mission Statement. > > > > Similarly life's Mission Statement. We can divide it and subdivide it > > into managable lists. Maybe three bullet items as top-level goals to > > make the mission statament happen. And 2-4 each for each of those > > goals to make subgoals and so on. > > > > The idea is to get to the point that when you decide to go to the kitchen > > to get a cup of coffee, you have a way to relate that decision to the > > approach to living al pi haTorah that you framed for yourself. > > > > Let me give an example, taken from the above blog page. > > > > Since I wrote a book based on R Shimon's haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher, > > the quote would be no surprise. For that matter, ch. 2 is titled > > "Mission Statement" and is a collection of thoughts about the > > openining sentence of the haqdamah. See the first paragraph of > > the copy in Widen Your Tent sec 1.1, pg 45 of the book or pg 4 of > > https://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf#page=4 > > > > So, my orignal mission statement translates to (it is important to > > be in first person singular): > > [My] greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals > > and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator > > (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according > > to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the > > creations. So too His Will is that [I] walk in His ways. > > > > Now I can divide that into three subgoals: > > - Having a connection to G-d > > - Internalizing His Will > > - Being a conduit of Hashem's Good into the lives of others. > > > > Internalizing His will, for example, was first subdivided into > > - Daily learning (which is what drives projects like AhS Yomi) > > - Daily Mussar work (like what I'm describing in this post), and > > - Regular in-depth learning -- chavrusos, shiurim, etc... > > > > Notice at this point I can start filling in things I can do this year. > > What learning? Which shiurim? As in part 1 -- which middos and what are > > the first months' exercises to chip away at them. (And buying a pretty > > new notebook. Somehow I do best at cheshbon hanefesh when I have a > > kewl new toy to do it with.) > > > > Hopefully, by month end when this "Spiritual Hoshin Plan" is done, I > > can pause in the middle of the workday and be able to say for myself > > that I'm putting up with this irate trader on the phone (I work for a > > Hedge Fund) so that I can pay for tuition (goal 3.2.4.2.5 or some-such), > > I can develop my personal creativity (as per 1.2... as being in the > > image of the Creator is something I view as a Mussar goal), etc.. And > > thereby give sanctity to an otherwise mundane (and stressfull) activity. > > > > And then every year things shift. Both in how I look at the world and in > > what are the pressing issues requiring more attention. Where parenting > > sits in the hierarchy was very different when I started than now that my > > youngest is a teenager. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable > treasure. > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp It preserves health, promotes convalescence, > > Author: Widen Your Tent and helps us cope with adversity. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of > Mishlei" > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:46:48 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] It's not our fault > > Message-ID: <20200901194648.GB18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:45:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > > > I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In > > > the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: > > > > >> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly > > >> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any > > >> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have > > >> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or > > >> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected > > >> on a dangerous road)." > > > > > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > > > > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have > passed > > > through unnoticed? > > > > Does it say that unnoticed strangers are included? > > > > The gemara (Sotah 46b) says (original at > https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.9 ): > > Would it cross our minds that BD were murderers? > > > > Rather [they are saying]: He did not come to us and we dismissed him > > without food. We didn't see him and leave him without accompaniment. > > > > My translation matches the TMS's, minus their parenthetic comments. (Which > > I will now assume is the author's insertions, rather than part of the > > medrash.) > > > > The two phrases "lo ba leyadeinu" and "vera'inhu" seem to me to mean > > the BD are saying that the didn't neglect anyone they knew of. That not > > knowing the person was in town would be one of the reasons they wouldn't > > be guilty. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp better if possible, and of changing himself > for > > Author: Widen Your Tent the better if necessary. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Victor Frankl, Man's search for > Meaning > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:31 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: > > KNCNNA at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on > > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? > > > > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day away. I > > think it is assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know that it won't > > be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. In contrast, > > if I request Monday delivery, that would be okay, even though I know that > > they'll be working for me on Shabbos, because it was their choice to work > > on Saturday rather than Sunday. > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/5837fd1d/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:11:20 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: <20200902141120.GA27483 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:00:31AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus > on > > > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? > > > > Well, if there isn't a contracted delivery date of Shabbos, then it's > > their choice whether to do melakhah for you on Shabbos, Friday or Sunday. > > The package could sit around in a transfer facility for 25 hours while > > they deal with more urgent packages if it's not the delivery date. The > > choice is theirs. > > > > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > > > > I guess in the case of (eg) 3 day delivery, since it wouldn't violate the > > contract to get it there in 2, someone might argue that you aren't > > asking them to do the delivery on Shabbos. But I don't know if mutar > > alternatives matter even when they're implausible. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his > fellow > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew > worries > > Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's > stomach. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:46:49 -0400 > > From: Zev Sero > > To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: <66cf413b-bbfa-c02e-885f-8a8bb7e152ce at sero.name> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > > On 2/9/20 8:00 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day > > > away. I think it is?assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know > > > that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during > Shabbos. > > > > I agree, *if* you know where it's coming from, and that it's not > > bich'dei sheyei'asu without working on Shabbos. But in the general case > > you don't know that, and I don't see why you have to worry about it just > > on spec. > > > > -- > > Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer > > zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:45:46 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim > > Message-ID: > > < > CABiM0c+1patT7b5FcLCxbn8wuZsCXzmoGyC846J6cQxP-9JJjQ at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > > > > > Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said that it is better to daven a > > > little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that > > > selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more than 15 > > > minutes, IIRC. > > > > It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing > > to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better > > than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time > > that's been taken from them. > > > > Much more important is the speed at which it is said. If the length of time > > would remain constant, but pages were skipped so that the rest could be > > said carefully and attentively, THAT'S what Chazal meant by "better to > > daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without." > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/455f462f/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 9 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:49:48 +0000 > > From: "Rich, Joel" > > To: 'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group' > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: > > < > CY4PR02MB25993558995FE1F789868116BF2F0 at CY4PR02MB2599.namprd02.prod.outlook.com > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > > ------------------------------- > > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's > Saturday delivery and you say nothing? > > KVCT > > 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 10 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:08:38 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] conservatism in davening > > Message-ID: > > < > CABiM0cJ4esqYBS9zWh5bP1UnGZYs67zrTwZ+HeYOcVVLWc9ULw at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > In the thread "Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im", R' Arie Folger wrote: > > > > > By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper > > > recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused > > > wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata > > > Hu E-loheinu. > > > > > > In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to > > > read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next > > > line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the > > > opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, > > > so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the > > > proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. > > > > I can see where some people might read the above, and feel that Rabbi > > Folger is being subjective and arbitrary in his choices of "proper" and > > "wrong". I had my brain all psyched up to spend the next hour or so writing > > a post to explain how he is objectively correct, and then I remembered that > > we covered this ground four years ago. > > > > Anyone who wants to learn more about how the recitation of these piyutim > > got messed up is strongly invited to review the thread "conservatism in > > davening" at > > > https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CONSERVATISM%20IN%20DAVENING > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/fc503c3c/attachment.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Avodah mailing list > > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah > > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 38, Issue 72 > > ************************************** > > -- ----------------------------- Moshe Zeldman Israel: (+972) 54 256 2888 US/Canada: 647 580 8965 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 18:34:46 2020 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:34:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d Message-ID: In Avodah V38n72, RZL noted: > This may happen elsewhere too < The first example which came into my mind when I saw RAMiller's message was a phrase in the P'Zachor *haftara* -- see I Sam 15:15. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 3 09:09:03 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 12:09:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <15e6bfd6-3399-dbb5-a721-6671f0b31da4@sero.name> On 2/9/20 4:49 pm, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > ------------------------------- > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's Saturday delivery and you say nothing? That should be fine. It's their decision, not yours. You told them you don't mind if they deliver it on Sunday. It's the same as dropping something off at the cleaners right before Shabbos and telling them you want it by 6 AM on Sunday. Since they could work on it all night Motzei Shabbos, you're fine, even though you know they will choose not to. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 18:13:02 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 21:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul Message-ID: . R' Moshe Zeldman asked: > If one should not say "starting YK I will never...", then how > does that fit with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the > vidui is saying "and I will never do X again"? > It sounds difficult to read into the Rambam that he means "I'm > still going to be doing X but I have a plan to eventually stop" Yes, the Rambam does say that at the beginning of Perek 1. But Perek 2 is all about less-than-ideal sorts of teshuva. I concede that I didn't notice the Rambam explicitly mentioning this weaning as a legitimate less-than-ideal form of teshuva. But still, it is hard for me to imagine that he would invalidate someone who said, "I did it, and I should not have done it, and I feel sorry that I did it, and in the future I will do it less than I used to." And even if the Rambam *would* say that such a person has *not* done teshuva, remember the context in which this idea was suggested: a person who has repeatedly found this particular aveira unusually difficult to conquer. Imagine further, that this person succeeds in a slow elimination of this aveira, and after many years - decades perhaps - he has finally conquered it. Such a person would certainly be no less of a Baal Teshuva than the one who the Rambam described in the middle section of halacha 2:1: "Even if he didn't do teshuva until his elderly days, and when it was impossible for his to do what he used to do, even though it's not an excellent teshuva, it still helps him, and he is a Baal Teshuva." Please note that this person described by the Rambam did not even begin regretting his sins until he was too old to do them. That's NOT the case we're discussing. We're discussing someone who still has to battle the yetzer hara. I can't help but wonder if this person, who executed a long, slow, but ultimately successful plan, might get the mitzva of Teshuva retroactively, to the beginning of that plan, maybe even according to the Rambam. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 10:43:29 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:43:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200904174329.GB3095@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:33:32AM +0300, Moshe Zeldman via Avodah wrote: > If one should not say "starting YK I will never...", then how does that fit > with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the vidui is saying "and I > will never do X again"? I'm going to shift topics a little from what the Rambam says should be done to what experience (and 20th cent Mussar sefarim) has shown does work. Lots of diets I promised myself I would start right after the chagim never happened. So, I don't think there is much commitment in "starting YK I will never..." Maybe we should be following the incremental approach... Promising now to take steps that by Yom Kippur I would be up to not doing X again, and by Chanukah not doing X-1, and by Pesach, X-2, and by next YK... Again, not claiming you can read that into the Rambam. But it does fit the Rambam's requirements for vidui while still having more chance of success than expecitng to be able to permanently change habits and character on a dime. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. http://www.aishdas.org/asp The purpose of life Author: Widen Your Tent is to give it away. -- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -- Pablo Picasso From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 10:58:49 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:58:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200904175849.GC3095@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:45:46PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing > to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better > than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time > that's been taken from them. Speaking specifically of "echad hamarbeh. ve'echad hamam'it..." and not trying to fit more services into the same number of rooms in the same morning or other pandemic issues... The idea is usually invoked for those of us who abbreviate Pesuqei deZimra in order to say fewer peraqim of Tehillim in the same time the minyan is saying more of them. Not to save time, but to spend more thought and similar time on fewer actions (in this case, speech). BUT... The past century has seen a HUGE shrinkage (sorry for the oxymoron) in attention spans. So, the more likely alternative of 15 minutes of rushed mumbeling may be better than an hour of mumbling while one's mind wanders. For many people, even on Yamim Noraim. May even have a net minus in the minimal kavanah of a rushed mumble. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] http://www.aishdas.org/asp isn't complete with being careful in the laws Author: Widen Your Tent of Passover. One must also be very careful in - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:48:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 14:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20200904184852.GD3095@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:49:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >> But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after >> hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's > Saturday delivery and you say nothing? Can it depend on who makes the decision? What if I ask one set of people to deliver my package, but another set of people make it impossible for them to get into the warehouse / vehicle on Sunday? And if I could guess as much that even if they wanted to deliver on Sunday it's not really in their power to do so? :-)BBii! -Micha From seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:25 2020 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2020 10:31:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avos - Shepherds Message-ID: The Avos ? Forefathers - (and Moshe Rabbeinu and Dovid HaMelech and others) were shepherds. Did they eat sheep? The few times when eating from the flock is mentioned, it seems to be goats (eg, Rivka feeding Yitzchak). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Sep 6 13:24:42 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:24:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Use a Public Grill? Message-ID: >From https://www.kosher.com/lifestyle/can-one-use-a-public-grill-1259 [https://www.kosher.com/resized/open_graph/s/h/shutterstock_442567648_banner.jpg] Can One Use a Public Grill? | Lifestyle | Kosher.com Shailah of the Week by Rabbi Zvi Nussbaum Rabbinic Coordinator, Kosher Hotline Administrator for the Orthodox Union Since a campground grill has been used to cook non-kosher foods (non-kosher meats and fish...), it may not be used unless it is properly kashered. The only way to kasher a gr... www.kosher.com Since a campground grill has been used to cook non-kosher foods (non-kosher meats and fish...), it may not be used unless it is properly kashered. The only way to kasher a grill top is with libun gamur (heating until the entire surface of the grill top rack becomes red hot). This can be accomplished by submerging the surface of the grill into burning charcoal. Even if the grill was used within the past 24 hours to cook non-kosher, and even if the grill had not been cleaned, it may still be kashered in this manner, since the intense heat will burn up all non-kosher residue and taste. There is no need to tovel the grill (immerse the grill in a mikvah), since it does not belong to you. It is owned by the park. Instead of kashering the grill, an easier option is to bring along your own grill top and a couple of bricks. If the non-kosher grill can be lifted out of the way, the kosher grill may be put in its place, balanced on the bricks. If you purchase a new grill top, it must be toveled before it is used. A third option is to double wrap your food with two layers of aluminum foil. Once properly wrapped, they may be placed directly on the non-kosher grill. In this case, it is better to clean the grill top first, or let the coals burn off the grease, before placing the double-wrapped food on top. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Sep 6 13:49:28 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:49:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pas Yisroel Message-ID: See https://www.crcweb.org/Pas%20Yisroel%20article%20.pdf Pas Yisroel during Aseres Y?mei Teshuvah Pas Yisroel By: Rabbi Dovid Cohen Administrative Rabbinic Coordinator, cRc Background In the times of the Mishnah, and possible even earlier, Chazal www.crcweb.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Sep 7 04:02:28 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:02:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] 10PM Slichot Message-ID: Anyone know why R' Moshe in O"C 2:105 didn't suggest pre-shacharit slichot rather than 10Pm slichot as a stand in for chatzot (midnight) slichot on the first night of slichot when there was a clear and present danger? Kvct 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 michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 11:26:57 2020 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:26:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another example, seen via this week's ShMOT: Deu 31 :26. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolberg at yebo.co.za Mon Sep 7 03:41:23 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 12:41:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 Message-ID: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> "And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. And so paskened the Geonei Olam for about [the last] eighty years. And this is the essential halocha." I have several questions about this. 1. Surely the use of Yiddish translations was very common and accepted? 2. Is this a response to the Reform use of German translations? 3. While the translation of the Shema might be problematic, translation of shemoneh esrei and brochas is surely not the same issue? From zev at sero.name Tue Sep 8 08:01:13 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 11:01:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10PM Slichot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0c0a2053-cf70-2689-d048-d3d3a7c9eab4@sero.name> On 7/9/20 7:02 am, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Anyone know why R? Moshe in O?C 2:105 didn?t suggest pre-shacharit > slichot rather than 10Pm slichot as a stand in for chatzot (midnight) > slichot on the first night of slichot when there was a clear and present > danger? The teshuva isn't about the first night, it's about all the days of selichos, and the situation is that it's impossible to do it either at midnight *or* before dawn. He takes it for granted that selichos must be said at night, Kumi Roni Valayla, and at an Eis Ratzon, which means any time between midnight and dawn, and says the minhag to do it at the end of the night, before dawn, is for convenience. So he reluctantly allows it after the first third of the night, with the proviso that it must be publicised that this is a hora'as sha'ah. Why doesn't he even consider doing it in the morning after daylight? I can think of two possibilities: Perhaps because selichos must be at night; or perhaps because people have to go to work and can't fit selichos in at their normal time for shacharis, and it's already posited in the question that for some reason they can't start earlier. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781 zev at sero.name "May this year and its curses end May a new year and its blessings begin" From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 11:43:48 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 14:43:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dates from Ancient Genes and Koseves Message-ID: <20200908184348.GA9440@aishdas.org> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/07/world/middleeast/israel-judean-dates-agriculture.html KETURA, Israel The plump, golden-brown dates hanging in a bunch just above the sandy soil were finally ready to pick. They had been slowly ripening in the desert heat for months. But the young tree on which they grew had a much more ancient history sprouting from a 2,000-year-old seed retrieved from an archaeological site in the Judean wilderness. Quick, can someone get the volume of these things before Yom Kippur? Kidding aside.... Do people think that the shiur of a kekoseves should be re-assessed, if necessary, based on this newly available data? RYBS, and his version of R Chaim's argument against Radziner tekheiles (or his argument against assuming orez = rice) would imply we don't. Halakhah can only be founded upon mesorah, not scientific data. My summary of that section of Nefesh haRav is at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n073.shtml#12 Anyone want to provide meqoros for other opinions? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... http://www.aishdas.org/asp ... but you're the pilot. Author: Widen Your Tent - R' Zelig Pliskin - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Sep 8 17:48:57 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 00:48:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] directed donations Message-ID: Question someone I know got concerning a contribution: Do you want your donation to the shul to be ?????? ???? ??? Response: I?d go with anonymous and pray that hkbh directs his accountant to allocate it to where it?s most needed. As a matter fact maybe that should be the inscription Thoughts? Kvct 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 llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 9 05:50:41 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 12:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 565:5) writes that the ?Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim? (thirteen attributes of mercy, Shemos 34:6-7) may not be recited unless there is a minyan. When these pesukim are recited in the context of prayer, they have the elevated status of a ?davar she?bikedusha,? like Kaddish or Kedusha, that may only be said in the presence of a minyan. The Mishnah Berurah (581:4) writes that Selichos that mention the Yud Gimmel Middos may be said, provided that those lines are skipped. If one prefers to say the Yud Gimmel Middos, he may do so if he recites them with the trop (cantillation) used for krias haTorah, as that indicates that it is not being recited as a tefillah (M?B 565:12). Mishnah Berurah also adds that any Selichos that are written in Aramaic should be skipped. The basis for this is the Gemara (Sotah 33a), in which Rebbi Yochanan states that angels do not deliver prayers that were recited in Aramaic, but when praying with a minyan one does not need the assistance of angels. Hashem?s presence is in the midst of the minyan and there is no need for angelic intervention. The Mishnah Berurah concludes, if there is no minyan at the beginning of Selichos, Kaddish is not said after Ashrei. Instead, the group should begin reciting Selichos. When the tenth man arrives, the congregation should recite three pesukim together, recite Kaddish and then continue from where they left off. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Sep 10 05:44:42 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:44:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When to Say Se;lichos Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. What is preferable? To wake up early and recite Selichos before dawn (a.k.a. alos hashachar, which is 72 minutes before sunrise), or to stay up late and recite Selichos after chatzos (midnight)? What about saying selichos after alos or after neitz hachama (sunrise)? A. Rav Yitzchak Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Yoma 22a) writes that the preferred time to recite Selichos is before dawn. This can be inferred from the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 3:4) who writes that it is customay to awake at night and recite Selichos until the morning. In addition, Mishnah Berurah (581:1) writes that the end of the night is an eis rotzon (a propitious time when G-d is receptive to prayer), implying that the early mornoing is the most appropriate time for Selichos. Finally, the She?arim Metzuyanim B?Halacah (Yoma 22a) notes that Selichos recited in the early morning is more effective, since it is recited through greater sacrifice; it is more difficult to wake up early than to stay up late. May Selichos be rected after sunrise? Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Divrei Si?ach, vol. 134) holds that it is preferable to recite Selichos after Chatzos than to recite Selichos later in the day after sunrise. On the otherhand, Rav Elyashav and Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach take an oposite opinion and write that it is better to recite Selichos in the daytime (even after sunrise) than to say it after chatzos (quoted in MB Dirshu MB, 581:1). Similiary, the Aruch Hashulchan writes that it has been customary to say selichos in the morning after sunrise for many generations. On the other hand, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt?l (Igros Moshe OC, 2:105) writes that kabalistically, the period after chatzos is as much an eis ratzon as early dawn, and for this reason, for many generations, it has been customary to recite Selichos at night after chatzos. This is also the opinion of the Minchas Elazar (the previous Munkatcher Rebbi), as recorded in Divrei Torah (141:76). Even those who recomend saying selichos in early morning before sunrise agree that on the first night of Selichos, on Motzei Shabbos, it is preferable to recite Selichos after Chatzos. This is because we wish to combine the merit of Shabbos together with the first Selichos. Therefore, we begin Selichos after Chatzos, and do not wait for the early morning (Chashukei Chemed, ibid.). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 15:12:12 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:12:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 In-Reply-To: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> References: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> Message-ID: <20200910221212.GB12180@aishdas.org> Sidenote: This se'if was recently studied by Arukh haShulchan Yomi. If you want to join us learning AhS Yomi, see the tools -- calendar, text, RYGB's YouTube playlist -- at http://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi ! AhS Yomi covers OC and the applicable portions of YD. (From egg spots to aveilus.) On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:41:23PM +0200, wolberg via Avodah wrote: >> And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the Shema and >> Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. >> And so paskened the Geonei Olam for about [the last] eighty years. And >> this is the essential halocha." ... > 1. Surely the use of Yiddish translations was very common and accepted? For women, yes. In fact, there is a script called Vaibrteitch because translations were in general considered for women. ("Women's Translation". "Teitch" evolved from the language name "Deutch".) Vaibrteitch is different than Rashi script. See examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaybertaytsh > 2. Is this a response to the Reform use of German translations? Likely. That bit about how they used to know Hebrew better is suspiciously post-facto sounding. Maybe when translating to another Semitic language, or to Greek using a millenia old tradition of Hebrew to Greek equivalences, we could have done better than we can to English. However, 600 years ago, translating to German, French or Spanish... No matter how well you know Hebrew, there is simply no close parallel to translate words to. A personal favorite when teaching Mussar is "yir'ah". Yir'ah is a range from awe to fear. Maybe the closest is "awareness of the magnitude of what you're facing" -- whether with admiration (awe) or thinking about risk (fear) or in another way. But because we are thinking "awe or fear" instead of a single concept, we cannot think about the middah of yir'as Shamayim in a fully authentic way. It's not two thing with an "or", or with a second thought about how they're related. It's a single territory that should be part of our gut's language about how we're feeling at a given point in time. In any case, it is true that real translation is impossible. I would faster *guess* that a machloqes about how close a translation may be got closed because the response to Reform forced our hand to choose one shitah over the other. > 3. While the translation of the Shema might be problematic, translation > of shemoneh esrei and brochas is surely not the same issue? Well, we cannot translation "Barukh Atah Hashem", at least not "barukh" or "Hashem" in any precise way. So, maybe not. I am not sure people really know what they mean when they say "blessed". But what is Barukh? - Source of increase - Maximally increased - May You -- in the form of the expression of Your Will in this world -- be incresed - An intentional ambiguity of all of the above? And sheim havayah pronounced as Adnus... - The Atemporal - The All-Compassionate - The Transcendent - The L-rd of All Etc... I would faster think the baqashos would be okay more than berakhos in general. Or maybe the body of the berakhah until the chasimah. As long as the translation is close enough so that it opens and wraps up with me'ein hachasimah. But lemaaseh, the AhS says that's not what "we hold". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. http://www.aishdas.org/asp - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:50:27 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Torah Musings] Why Did the Holocaust Happen Message-ID: <20200911175027.GA23887@aishdas.org> A survey by R Gil Student. https://www.torahmusings.com/2020/09/why-did-the-holocaust-happen/ (And a couple of the comments on his post.) :-)BBii! -Micha Torah Musing Why Did the Holocaust Happen? Posted by: Gil Student Posts Sep 7, 2020 As I reviewed the weekly Torah reading for this past Shabbos, which includes the tochekhah (Deut. 28), I was taken back to my teenage years, reading it one Saturday or Sunday afternoon and seeing Jewish history in it. To a non-religious Jewish teenager in the 1980's who grew up among survivors, the question of God in the Holocaust was not a faith issue that could be ignored. Reading the biblical text with minimal commentary (I think I used S.L. Gordon's secular commentary), I saw a prophecy that sin would lead to the kind of inhuman devastation seen in the Holocaust, a prediction that was fulfilled thousands of years later. To me, the Holocaust was not an impediment to faith but a convincing proof of Judaism's truth claims. Not everyone sees it that way. Many are offended by the very claim that the Holocaust was a divine punishment, although often due to objections that miss important discussions in traditional Jewish literature which we will mention briefly below. The issues are so sensitive, and during the 1970's and 1980's in particular the denominational conflicts were so strong, that unnecessarily forceful rhetoric turned an issue of faith into a weapon. In my opinion, a legitimate theological view has been dismissed due to heightened sensitivities and denominational politics. I. Five Approaches to the Holocaust Modern Orthodoxy has developed two main theologies of the Holocaust: 1) Hester Panim - God hid His face, turned away, and let mankind unleash wanton violence. R. Norman Lamm takes this approach in his [51]"The Face of God: Thoughts of the Holocaust". It is important to note that God hides His face (Deut. 31:17) due to Jewish sins (ibid., 16). (Some claim that brief mentions of hester panim by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik in his Kol Dodi Dofek constitute his adoption of this approach, but see R. Reuven Ziegler, Majesty and Humility, p. 277 n. 4, where he dismisses this interpretation.) 2) Free Will - God allows mankind the free will to sin, which includes the ability to murder and torture others. R. Eliezer Berkovits advocates this approach in his Faith After the Holocaust. The alternative approaches generally discussed are: 3) Anti-Zionism - The Satmar Rebbe's argument that Zionism led to the Holocaust, in his [52]Al Ha-Ge'ulah Ve-Al Ha-Temurah. 4) Zionism - The Religious Zionist argument that the Holocaust paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel. This view is attributed to R. Zvi Yehudah Kook (see Aviezer Ravitzky, Messianism, Zionism and Jewish Religious Radicalism, pp. 126-128). 5) Secularization - R. Avigdor Miller popularized the view that the assimilation and secularization of Jews in the 150 years prior to the Holocaust resulted in this punishment. R. Norman Lamm quotes this from R. Miller's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 278-279) and you can find quotes on the subject by searching [53]TorasAvigdor.org for the word "Holocaust". (A reader informed me that R. Miller has a book on the subject was posthumously published -- [54]A Divine Madness: Rabbi Avigdor Miller's Defense of Hashem in the Matter of the Holocaust.) II. The Slabodka Holocaust Theology I would like to explore here the approach of a Holocaust victim, Rav Avraham Grodzinski, the mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva who perished in 1944. I will be blending in another important view of Rav Grodzinski, along with his son-in-law Rav Shlomo Wolbe's presentation of Rav Grodzinski's approach in Rav Wolbe's (anonymously published) book of outreach speeches given in the wake of the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars (originally published as Bein Sheshes Le-Asor, later republished as Olam Ha-Yedidus). Rav Grodzinski's approach is most similar to that of Rav Miller, which is not surprising since the latter studied in the Slabodka yeshiva. However, I am not sure that Rav Miller developed it in the same way as Rav Grodzinski and he certainly did not present it in the same sensitive way as Rav Wolbe. [55]Rav Avraham Grodzinski succeeded Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel ("The Alter") as mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva, when the latter moved to Israel and established a branch of the yeshiva in Chevron. Rav Grodzinski (a brother-in-law of Rav Ya'akov Kamenetsky) stayed in Europe to the end, suffering a martyr's death in the Kovno Ghetto in 1944. He sent his writings to his students in Israel, who together with [56]his surviving sons published them in 1963 as Toras Avraham, a brilliant book of profound Mussar thought presented in the style of Talmudic thinking. [57]Rav Shlomo Wolbe first published Bein Sheshes Le-Asor anonymously in 1975, although it is clearly in his style and was posthumously republished by the foundation to publish his writings. The book consists mainly of his outreach lectures throughout Israel, spurred by the renewed interest in Israel awakened by the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War. The chapter on the Holocaust, however, was prepared for a class at the Bais Ya'akov of Jerusalem (commonly known as BJJ). I assume that Rav Wolbe included this chapter because he believes that this issue is important to those seeking to grow in faith. Rav Wolbe begins with a story emphasizing the importance of finding meaning in your suffering. It is obvious, he says, that we must help others by alleviating their suffering in any way possible. However, faith teaches us that there is meaning in suffering, a lesson to be learned. Rav Wolbe continues that even when God hides His face from us, there are no accidents. Therefore we must examine our lives to see what God wants from us. This is true not just for individuals but for nations as a whole. Throughout, Rav Wolbe quotes mainly biblical verses to prove his points, although I can think of many Talmudic passages that would do likewise. The believer is strengthened from the fact that destruction and suffering do not occur by happenstance but rather come guided by divine providence after ample warning. The traditional Jewish texts of the Bible, Talmud and Midrash warn us of the horrific consequences of sin. Rav Wolbe highlights in particular the language of the Gemara (Kesubos 111a), while sidestepping the specific Talmudic context, of "If not, I (God) will abandon your flesh like the gazelles and like the hinds of the field." Due to sin, Jewish flesh will be hunted like animals. Nobody, Rav Wolbe continues, is allowed to decide for what reason the Holocaust happened to us unless he personally suffered himself. Only a victim can conduct this examination of the generation. As we will later see, Rav Grodzinski did not necessarily agree with this. Perhaps Rav Wolbe set this condition for rhetorical purposes. Regardless, with that introduction, Rav Wolbe then invokes Rav Grodzinski's Holocaust theology. III. Suffering and Sins The introduction to Toras Avraham (1978 second edition, p. 17) describes how Rav Grodzinski discussed at length with his students in the Kovno Ghetto the spiritual causes of the Holocaust. He listed twelve primary sins, or areas where we were lacking, and exhorted them to strengthen the Jewish people in these areas if they survived the war. Rav Grodzinski wrote all these talks down but the writings were lost in the war. [58]Rav Mordechai Zuckerman survived and recorded the twelve lackings from memory. They are: 1) Faith 2) Shabbos observance 3) Family purity 4) Kosher food 5) Charging interest 6) Torah education of children 7) Wasting time that could be used for Torah study 8) Loving your fellow Jew 9) Lovingkindness (chesed) 10) Making do with less (histapkus) 11) Trust in God 12) The land of Israel (I don't know what this means in this context). I do not know if Rav Grodzinski applied Talmudic statements to his contemporary events, such as "seven punishments come to the world due to seven sins" (Avos 5:8), or if he looked at specific types of suffering and found the "measure for measure" in them, or a combination of both methods or something else. Because his writings were lost, we lack insight into his specific methodology. Regardless, I appreciate his general approach, as described below, and recognize that he used it to reach specific conclusions, which I find worthy as areas to strengthen ourselves. Rav Wolbe adds to the above list the general secularization of the Jewish people that began with Emancipation and continued with the Jewish Enlightenment. This was accompanied by widespread abandonment of Jewish faith and practice. Historically, he claims, every period of "enlightenment" has ended with Jewish tragedy. The Holocaust continues that historical cycle. I believe that Rav Grodzinski's Holocaust theology is intimately connected with his theology of suffering. In a series of lectures in late 1936 and early 1937, Rav Grodzinski explored the unique value of suffering to the religious personality. It might be worthwhile noting that since childhood, Rav Grodzinski suffered great physical pain that he overcame through sheer force of personality. Rav Grodzinski begins by pointing out what we lost as a nation and as individuals by the cessation of prophecy (roughly) after the destruction of the First Temple. The prophets informed us of our sins, directed us to the proper behavior, guided us to spiritual recovery. When prophecy ceased, we lost that guidance but were not left without any religious compass. Suffering shows us where we must focus. God punishes us measure for measure. Therefore, we can look at our suffering, our punishment, as a guide for where we need to improve our behavior. To some degree, suffering is more effective than prophecy. "The removal of Achashverosh's ring (for the sealing of Haman's decree) was more effective than the forty-eight prophets and the seven prophetesses who prophesied on behalf of the Jewish people. They all were unable to bring the Jewish people to repentance, but the removal of Achashverosh's ring brought them to repentance" (Megillah 14a). Additionally, suffering empowers you to find your own path to redemption, without the need for a third party, a prophet. Suffering not only directs you to improve but encourages you, offers you the incentive of freedom from suffering. Rav Grodzinski adds (p. 54) that suffering guides not only the sinners but others, as well. When we see someone suffering and understand the sin that caused it, we learn a very persuasive lesson about what behavior we should avoid. This is true also about the educational value of nations making flawed decisions that seal their fate. The suffering of nations teaches us what national mistakes to avoid (cf. Zephaniah 3:6-7). In Rav Grodzinski's view, a wise and learned person, steeped in Talmud and Midrash, can examine the suffering of the Holocaust to identify its underlying spiritual causes and learn from them. After conducting a careful examination, Rav Grodzinski reached his conclusions (unfortunately, his thought process was recorded in writing but lost) and beseeched his students to work to fix these spiritual problems. IV. Common Objections 1) Rav Wolbe concludes with a common question: Why did righteous people suffer in the Holocaust? He quotes Rav Grodzinski as explaining that the more righteous someone is, the harsher he is judged. R. Akiva suffered from Roman torture and murder because, we are told, "this intention arose before" God (Menachos 29b). What is that intention? Rashi (Gen. 1:1) says, "At first God intended to create the world under the attribute of strict justice, but He realized that the world could not thus endure and therefore gave priority to mercy combined with justice." R. Akiva and the other righteous individuals are judged with the initial intent, pure justice. Even without Rav Wolbe's interpretation of this passage, we see elsewhere that the righteous are judged by a hairbreadth (Yevamos 121b), meaning that what for others constitutes a minor infraction for someone righteous is a big sin. Additionally, once God sends a punishment to a group (city, country, nation), that punishment applies to everyone whether righteous or wicked (Bava Kamma 60a). That is part of being a people -- our fates are connected. In fact, the Gemara (Shabbos 55a) says that when God punishes the Jewish people, He starts with the most righteous. 2) Were the people killed in the Holocaust guilty? - Even though no one can claim to be free from guilt, it is hard to imagine that anyone committed a sin so heinous as to deserve the horrors of the Holocaust. However, a sin committed by many is worse than a sin committed by an individual. Additionally, God is patient and allows time -- generations -- for the Jewish people to return before punishing us. When the punishment arrives, it is not just for that generation but for the previous generations as well (Ex. 20:5; Or Ha-Chaim, ad loc.). The generation of the Holocaust lived at the end of God's long wait for a return that never arrived. We do not stand in judgement of those who died or suffered in the Holocaust, nor do we say that they are more deserving than people before or after them. According to this understanding, they were individuals who lived at a time in history when the Jewish people was punished for its collective sins over many generations, for its long drift away from traditional Jewish observance. 3) Were the Nazis right to kill Jews? - This question is natural but odd. Natural because it emerges from the overall approach but odd because it has been discussed for centuries. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Teshuvah 6:5) asks why Pharaoh and the Egyptians were punished for enslaving the Jews when it was part of God's plan as told to Avraham (Gen. 15:13). Rambam answers that someone was destined to enslave the Jews but the Egyptians were guilty for being the ones to do it and therefore suffered ten plagues and drowning at the sea (see also Ramban, Gen. 15:14; I discuss it [59]here). May the Nazis suffer a hundred times ten plagues for their part in the Holocaust. None of this detracts from God's role in punishing the Jewish people through the guilty Egyptian hands. 4) What value is there in looking for other people's sins? - As discussed above, Rav Grodzinski sees value in learning what to fix. If we do not learn the spiritual lessons of history, we are condemned to repeat them. Additionally, Ramban (Sha'ar Ha-Gemul in Kisvei Ha-Ramban, vol. 2 p. 281; I discuss it [60]here) offers four reasons to engage in theodicy, even if ultimately you cannot fully understand God's ways. First, we benefit from gaining a better understanding of God's ways. More wisdom is good. Metaphysical knowledge, understanding God's actions, is always positive. Second, studying the ways in which God rewards and punishes people strengthens our belief. Our continuous exploration of God's ways reinforces within us His existence and His providence. Our greater understanding affords us confidence that explanations exist to even what we do not understand. Additionally, concludes Ramban, the obligations to fear and love God include a requirement to accept His judgment, to explain and justify God's decisions. This is a mitzvah of tziduk ha-din. 4) Is it sacrilegious to try to understand God's justice? - No, it is a mitzvah, as per the previous point. It also is not insulting to speak of punishment due to sins. When the Shakh writes about the Chmelnitzki massacres, he refers to what happened to us "due to our sins." When the Ra'avan writes about the First Crusade ([61]Kuntres Gezeiras Tatn"u), he specifically invokes the tokhecha, saying that they experienced all of the biblical curses. This is a strain of, if not the dominant strain in, traditional Judaism. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Ta'aniyos 1:3) calls it cruelty to fail to look for the sins that led to divine punishment. 5) Can anyone know God's reasons absent prophecy? - Rav Yitzchak Hutner ("Holocaust" -- A Study of the Term, and the Epoch it is Meant to Describe" in [62]Jewish Observer, October 1977, p. 9) writes: "One would have to be a navi or Tanna (a prophet or Talmudic sage) to claim knowledge of the specific reasons for what befell us; anyone on a lesser plane claiming to do so tramples in vain upon the bodies of the kedoshim who died Al Kiddush Hashem [as holy martyrs] and misuses the power to interpret and understand Jewish history." On the other hand, this same Rav Hutner gave an approbation to Rav Wolbe's book quoted above. Furthermore, it seems that Rav Grodzinski, himself a holy martyr, felt his method of analyzing suffering serves the function of prophecy in today's age. 6) Why does this usually ring so hollow? - When the Holocaust is discussed without sensitivity and empathy, the proposed explanations sound shallow and offensive. In my opinion, that is why Rav Wolbe began with a long introduction and invoked the conclusions of a Holocaust victim, Rav Grodzinski. Furthermore, many of the people offering explanations today either are, or sound like or are portrayed by the media as being, self-righteous fools. It is hard to take seriously someone whose analysis is shallow and only validates his regular message. If your answer to everything is female immodesty, you lack credibility to offer a thoughtful and nuanced answer. Rav Grodzinski does not face this challenge but some people may unfairly associate him with others who suffer that problem. There may be other reasons that this approach often rings hollow but these should suffice for our purposes. Personally, I benefited from this tokhecha approach which I intuited as a non-religious teenager. I am not certain which sins caused the Holocaust but I am open to honest, sensitive speculation as a way of learning from history, which I believe is that in which Rav Grodzinski and Rav Wolbe engaged. If this approach had been deemed theologically unacceptable, despite its impeccable pedigree, I don't know if I would be religious today. In my opinion, it is a shame to remove this approach from our theological toolbox due to politics and rhetoric from decades ago. ... 3 comments 1. Kovner Sep 8, 20 at 6:44 am You missed out on one more important approach. Read the classic introduction to Zichron Kodosh written by the author of Nesivos Sholom - RSN Barzovsky zt"l. The sefer was published once, and never reprinted. Also, the Toras Avrohom was published by a son - not sons - of RAG. Only one son did not perish. ... 3. Kovner Sep 9, 20 at 7:05 pm I'm not skilled to do so accurately and faithfully. Never the less, I'll venture to say that the central point is that it's all part of Hashem's Grand Plan of human history, and is beyond our comprehension. And therefore the most appropriate response is "Vayidom Aharon"... ... Copyright 2020 All rights reserved References 51. https://merrimackvalleyhavurah.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/the-face-of-god-thoughts-on-the-holocaust/ 52. http://www.mysatmar.com/docs/shite_hakdoshe/ 53. https://torasavigdor.org/ 54. https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Madness-Avigdor-Millers-Holocaust/dp/B00EF68V9C 55. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Grodzinski 56. https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/54188/harav-yitzchok-grodzinsky-recalls-the-last-moments-of-hagon-rav-elchonon-wasserman-hyd-before-his-murder.html 57. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Wolbe 58. https://www.jdn.co.il/breakingnews/1230669/ 59. https://www.torahmusings.com/2016/05/were-the-egyptians-right/ 60. https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/10/why-theodicy/ 61. https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34838&st=&pgnum=2&hilite= 62. https://agudah.org/the-jewish-observer-vol-12-no-8-october-1977chesvan-5738/ From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Sat Sep 12 10:18:12 2020 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 17:18:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Has anyone seen litereature about the following Issues when Davening BiYehidut (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. (2) If one says the piyut of the Avoda after his private Musaf shmoneh Esrei, can he fall korim, what about Aleinu Shanah Tovah, Beri'ah u-metukah! Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Sep 13 20:36:29 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2020 23:36:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 Message-ID: . asked several questions about Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4, who wrote: > And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the > Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. Spoiler alert: I have several problems with this Aruch Hashulchan, and I suspect that (as R' Wolberg suspects), the AhS had ulterior reasons for writing this (such as the inroads that Reform was making via their translations) and could not have really meant it l'halacha. In any case, there are other poskim who do allow translations. I will begin by giving my own translation of this section of AhS, so that if anyone disagrees with my understanding of what he said, they can bring it to my attention. I will break it into several numbered pieces for easier reference. >>> 1) Know that this [halacha] that Krias Shema and Tefilla may be said in any language - this is certainly when one translates really the entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh into the other language. For otherwise, it would not constitute Shema and Tefilla. 2) According to that, this law does not apply except in the time of the Mishna and Gemara, for they knew our language well, and they were able to translate it. 3) But now, it is well-known that we have a number of uncertainties in explaining the words, and the commentators are divided about it. For example, how do we translate "totafos"? Similarly, the pasuk "Shema Yisrael" has various explanations even of its simple meaning. Likewise in the section about tzitzis, some explain it [the word "tzitzis"] in the sense of "looking" [from the root tzadi yud tzadi], and some explain it as "going" [from yud tzadi aleph]. Same for the word "p'sil" and many [other words] like it. 4) Behold, the essential Name of Havay' - we don't know how to translate it correctly! There are those who translate it as Nitzchi [Eternal], and some translate it as Kol-Yachol [Almighty], and there is no translation at all for "Was and Is and Will Be", which is the real Name Havay', so they equate the translation of the Name Havay' with the Name Elokim. 5) [Here he says something about two very different ways of translating "V'chara af", but I don't understand what he is saying.] 6) And therefore, nowadays it is forbidden to recite Krias Shema or Tefilla or any brachos except in Lashon Hakodesh, and so have the Geonei Olam paskened for about eighty years now, and this is the bottom-line halacha. >>> The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it? He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists? According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty AND Was/Is/WillBe? In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3: 1) It seems in my humble opinion that there is an established halacha by which one can get out of any questionable bracha acharona. For example, one is unsure if he said a bracha acharona or not. Or if he *needs* to make a bracha acharona or not. There is a way to extricate himself from this safek. 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167. 3) If so, one can say "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, boray nefashos etc. ..." If he was obligated in this bracha, then he is yotzay with this. And if he didn't need this bracha, then he has *not* uttered the Name of Heaven in vain, because there is no mention of the Name at all. Look, you can say "Rachamana" a hundred times! 4) Or similar things with other brachos. You should think in your heart that if you need the bracha then it is [being said] for the sake of a bracha; and if not, then it's just talking. 5) I have done this myself several times when drinking hot drinks. The most obvious thing from this section is that the Aruch Hashulchan personally believes that a bracha CAN be said in Aramaic. You might respond that he makes an exception for Aramaic, which is arguably a Lashon Hakodesh. But look again at the AhS's requirements for an adequate translation of Hashem's Name - which is an absolute necessity when saying a bracha - and I don't think "Rachamana" conveys any sense of "Was and Is and Will Be". Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude someone from a partial translation. For example, one could translate most of the words, and leave the difficult words untranslated, which is almost exactly how ArtScroll handles the cited case of "totafos": "Bind them as a sign upon your arm and let them be tefillin between your eyes." If I'm understanding Siman 62 correctly, the AhS wants translation to be all-or-nothing, and since all is not possible, he feels justified in banning all translations. But in Siman 202, a partial translation is exactly what he is doing, by translating the initial words of the bracha, and then continuing with the regular Hebrew text. By the way, it seems that Rav Moshe Feinstein agrees that a translation must be all-or-nothing. See Igros Moshe OC 4:40:27, which is two paragraphs. In the first paragraph, he rejects the AhS's suggestion of using Brich Rachamana to get out of problems, precisely because you can't mix languages in that manner. (It's not at all clear to me why we're not allowed to mix languages, but it is very clear that Rav Moshe rejects it.) In the second paragraph he explains that even if one would say the entire bracha in Aramaic, that too would not resolve a safek bracha problem, because whereas the AhS had no compunctions against saying Rachamana a hundred times, *we* are noheg to avoid saying the Name in vain even when translated. As an aside, there are several teshuvos in which Rav Moshe explains his views on how to translate Hashem's Name for brachos in other languages. See for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:272, where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana, "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ... And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe, whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include concepts like "Was and Is and Will Be". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Sep 14 05:43:25 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:43:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. What is the minimum amount of shofar blowing that one is required to hear? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. In three different places the Torah commands us to blow shofar in the month of Tishrei: Twice in relation to Rosh Hashanah, and once in reference to Yom Kippur (Yovel ? Jubilee). The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 34a) connects the three verses and derives that each time the shofar is blown, it must be blown three times. The Gemara also proves that every blowing of the shofar actually consists of three parts: A Tekiah (a long blow), followed by a Teruah (a broken blow), followed by a Tekiah. This makes for a total of nine blows. The mitzvah is to blow the shofar nine times following this pattern. Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah However, because the Gemara records a disagreement as to the sound of the Teruah, we blow three variations. This amounts to 30 blows. 3X ? Tekiah ? Shevarim Teruah ? Tekiah=(12) 3X ? Tekiah ? Shevarim? Tekiah=(9) 3X ? Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah=(9) This is the minimum amount of shofar blows that one should hear to fulfill their obligation. If even this is too much, at the very least one should make sure to hear at least ten blasts. (See Mishnah Berurah 586:22 & 600:7). Tekiah ? Shevarim Teruah ? Tekiah=(4) Tekiah ? Shevarim ? Tekiah=(3) Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah=(3) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 18:29:14 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 21:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur Message-ID: . R' Aryeh Frimer asked: > Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when > Davening BiYehidut > (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but > perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la > Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head: Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice. Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 06:38:38 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:38:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Q. Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 565:5) writes that the "Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim" > (thirteen attributes of mercy, Shemos 34:6-7) may not be recited unless there is a > minyan. When these pesukim are recited in the context of prayer, they have the > elevated status of a "davar she'bikedusha," like Kaddish or Kedusha, that may only > be said in the presence of a minyan. I actually traced this back to its source - a new obsession of mine. It's a Tur in 565 (Hil. Ta'anis). "Rav Nosson writes there's no Minhag for an individual to say the 13 attributes." (Excuse the stilted word-for-word translation). The Tur then seems to make it clear that he's quoting this to ensure people don't find this Rav Nosson and pasken like it: "I don't know what the problem is since it's like saying Psukim, since the Chachamim only say (not to say w/o a Minyan) a Dovor Shebikdusha like Kaddish, Kedusha and Borchu" (Who is this Rav Nosson? The only Rishon I could find by this name was the Oruch.) The Darkei Moshe injects (on Rav Nosson's statement) saying "our Minhag is (for individuals) to say it, but not during the Shmoneh Esre. The Mahr"iv quoting the O"Z says individuals should not say Selichos." (I.e. they used to say Selichos on Ta'anis during Chazoras haShatz. Actually, we Yekkes still do.) See it online at https://www.sefaria.org.il/Tur%2C_Orach_Chaim.565.1?with=Darchei%20Moshe - for those who can see the Hebrew: , ???? ???? ?????:??:? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?"? ???? [?] ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???: [?] ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????"? ??? ?"? ???? ????? ???? ?????? So the Tur and the Darkei Moshe both agree that an individual can say the "Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim". The dissenting opinion says to skip Selichos altogether. >From there it's all downhill. The common denominator being that all Nosie Keilim seem to pasken like Rav Nosson and try to find workarounds. I find this fascinating. I wonder if the Tur now regrets ever mentioning this opinion. :-) Note that this is all mentioned in Hil. Ta'anis. In 581 where they discuss Selichot during Elul, they ignore this topic completely. KVT - Danny From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Sep 16 10:42:32 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:42:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] practical and detailed shir for Baalei tokaya and makri Message-ID: <089901d68c50$c22d7680$46886380$@touchlogic.com> Very good. Starts basic, but gets better.. >From Rabbi Mordechai Scheiner, rosh Kollel Ohr Yosef - toronto https://zoom.us/rec/share/xyvl_GE2lRo5GmE02A0XVqL4TEp3Kq4RqYfPZ4zAbezsR4D1c7G8LaIToB8dxYbe.0vgzJDhv9dDlViCP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 13:40:15 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:40:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <2110840790.2504917.1600178620157@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20200914185208.GC25700@aishdas.org> <2110840790.2504917.1600178620157@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20200917204015.GA749@aishdas.org> Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT: > Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim > we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is > problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out sifrei > Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos given to > 12 year olds, etc... > This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked how > we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to celebrate a > siyum that itself is iffy. > But when I wrote that, few of us really thought that Israel would be > closing down for the chagim, and that ever minute of shul in nearly all > of chu"l is increasing medical risk. So now we're talking about invoking > heteirim to party at the peril of the medically fragile in the community. > I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the > bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this year's > leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a Simchas > Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can anyone argue > for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that psychological need for > the majority of people? On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 2:03pm GMT, R Harry Maryles replied on Areivim: > It's true that most Shuls had a pretty big gap in their weekly Kriyas > HaTorah and that many Parshios were missed. But some Shuls hae made them > up. In a few cases no Parshios were missed. For example in my son's > neighborhood of Ramat bet Shemesh which is over 90% observant, my son > did KhT every Shabbos from his balcony with a Minyan made of of all of > his neighbors within earshot. (Don't know how he arrived at calling this > Teffilah B'Tzibur, but that was his Beshas Ha'dechak Psak.) > IIUC, Doing Hakafos on ST is a Minahg of the Tzibur, not the Yachid. > It is based on what the Klal as a whole does. The celebration of > completing yearly cycle with Hakafos is therefore appropriate this year > just like every year. But only along the lines I suggested because of > the pandemic. There are cases where every parashah was leined beause the members of the minyan can't disband anyway -- like in a nursing home or on an army base. But I fear you presented a false dichotomy. Yes, leining and therefore the siyum on leining we celebrate on ST are about the tzibur. But I wouldn't assume that means the global tzibur. After all, there was even a time when annual leining wasn't a universal norm. I had presented a third option, because I had assumed a neighorhood tzibbur. With all the modern complications now that most communities have shenei batei din ba'ir, as we put it WRT the tzibbur accepting Shabbos. But whether your town, your shul, or something else, that I didn't have a position on. So as I saw it, if no minyan in town leined the whole seifer Torah betzibbur, how is that community making a siyum? Shouldn't the shul making the party include at least person completing the text being mesayeim? In any case, there are at least those three possibilities, and we only agree on ruling out the first one, the yachid. But my point on Areivim, just like the point I made here to begin with, was more about most of the minhagim for celebrating Simchas Torah are on the defensive. We lein at night. (At least most of us do.) We take out more sifrei Torah than we read from. We give way too many people aliyos. We are relying on heteirim on a slew of dinim about kavod ST and qeri'as haTorah. We need a certain level of justification for it. We don't have to just say that ST celebrates someone else's completion of the Torah -- we need to be able to argue that's true strongly enough to justify those heteirim. Or, that we need ST for our mental health strongly enough to qualify as justification. Which is an approach I am more sympathetic to than saying I am dancing in my shul with a seifer Torah to celebrate the men of Nachal Yehudah (eg) and in the senior living facilities a couple of miles outside our eiruv at Daughter of Miryam completing a cycle of leining. Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries http://www.aishdas.org/asp are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 18 05:05:52 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:05:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Is one permitted to fast on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. One is not permitted to fast on Rosh Hashanah because Rosh Hashanah is a Yom Tov. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (OC 597:1) rules that one must eat, drink and rejoice on Rosh Hashanah. Nonetheless, unlike other Yomim Tovim, one should not overindulge, lest the solemn nature of the day will be obscured. However, there were Rishonim who held that it is permissible to fast during the daytime because Rosh Hashanah is a day of teshuva. Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l said that his great-grandfather, the Beis HaLevi, would fast both days. In fact, there were those who would fast even on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah because they considered the importance of teshuva on this day to be on the level of pikuach nefesh (life threatening), which overrides the requirement to eat a Shabbos seuda. Although in practice we follow the Shulchan Aruch and do not fast on Rosh Hashanah, the Mishnah Berurah (584:5) makes a distinction between Rosh Hashanah which falls on Shabbos, and Rosh Hashanah which falls on a weekday, as follows: When Rosh Hashanah falls on a weekday, we are permitted to extend the davening into the afternoon, while if Rosh Hashanah is on Shabbos, we are required to finish davening before chatzos (halachic midday) so as not to fast past the morning. As such, if one expects their shul to finish davening on Shabbos after chatzos, it is best to drink a tea or coffee in the morning before going to shul, to avoid fasting inappropriately on Shabbos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 18 05:17:03 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:17:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Laws & Customs: Month of Tishrei during the Corona period Message-ID: For those in quarantine, davening by themselves or in outside Minyanim Please see https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/groupsioattachments/14569/76906693/102/0?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJECNKOVMCCU3ATNQ&Expires=1600431735&Signature=d1788QfnWQyWHF1xjnl7Zn59EJg%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3D%22Tishrei+During+Corona.pdf%22 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Mon Sep 21 05:50:14 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 13:50:14 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? Message-ID: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT: > Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim > we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is > problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out > sifrei Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos > given to > 12 year olds, etc... BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So while it might be that the Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah out). Note that that also means that the siyum for the year, even in a normal year, is not complete (or about to be completed) when the sifrei Torah are taken out at night, as the first hakafos take place (at latest) on the night of Simchat Torah, and yet the finishing of the yearly reading only occurs the next day. Note the reason why I say at latest is because many Sephardim (although not all) have the custom of doing seven sets of seven hakafot which mean they do hakafot on Shmini Atzeret as well (three sets on Shmini Atzeret, to correspond with the three services, three sets on Simchat Torah, to correspond with the three services, and one after Simchat Torah). > This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked > how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to > celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy. There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah, something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah. Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations and to call to others to make a feast. *And further it is the custom* in our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every place according to its custom. *And further we are accustomed* to circle with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with the lulav *and all is because of joy* *Further we are accustomed* to call all the lads to the sefer Torah, ... and in every place according to their custom. *Further we are accustomed* to finish the Torah even with a child oleh..." That is, while you appear to be saying that *because* we make a siyum on the Torah *therefore* we do all these other halachically iffy customs, even the Rema does not say this. To the extent he gives a reason, it is "because of joy", and all the customs are as a result of *that* category. Which makes sense, because making a siyum justifies a seudah being considered a seudas mitzvah (and may justify the name of Simchas Torah, instead of second day Shmini Atzeret), and there are references in the gemara that seem to justify the making of a feast for a siyum, although the derivation is not really that straightforward, nowhere does it allow any of the other behaviour that might be Halachically iffy. On the other hand, simcha is a mitzvah d'orisa on yom tov, and indeed according to Sukkah 48a " It was taught in a braita: [Devarim 16:16] "and it will be completely joyous" this is to include the night of the last day of Yom Tov [lelei yom tov acharon]" Now of course, that is referring in the Torah to Shmini Artzeret, and it is interesting that in chutz l'aretz, we seem to have taken the especially joyous obligation of that d'orisa mitzvah, and attached it to what is the night of yom tov achron for us, which in fact is only minhag avosaynu b'yadanu. But be that as it may, it seems to me that, as the Rema says, the justification for all of these minhagim is simchas yom tov, and particularly the extra simcha of the final days of yom tov, and that they are independent of one another, so that the aspects related to making a siyum on the Torah are independent of taking the sifrei Torah out, and of doing the hakafos, and of singing and dancing. And if anything, the minhag of having a siyum on completing a full yearly reading of the Torah could perhaps be seen as being caused by the obligation to create extra joy on Shmini Atzeret/Simchas Torah, and not the other way around. We have arranged our schedules so that we have the joy of completely the Torah on this day, as Torah learning is in and of itself a form of joy (see eg the introduction to the Eglei Tal), so we arrange them to coincide. > I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the > bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this > year's leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a > Simchas Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can > anyone argue for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that > psychological need for the majority of people? But again, this assumes that all the minhagim on Simchas Torah are a direct result of the siyum, which I do not believe is the case. It is important to have Simchas Yom Tov, and to do what we can to maximise simchas Yom Tov, and if the siyum part is not possible, but the other parts are, then the other parts should be done. <> And the classic justification for these heterim is that the aseh of simcha is docheh, as per the Rema. However, because we are taking about simcha that is required by the Torah, it is linked to and part and parcel with simcha with the Torah - without the Torah there would be no obligation of such simcha, so simcha that is antithetical to the Torah, ie does not encompass kavod haTorah, is not justified. Which is why I am not even convinced that it is a tzibbur versus yachid thing. Would there be a problem if a Rav, who happened to live above the shul, took out the sefrei Torah and did hakafos with them with his family around an empty shul, because he was restricted by Covid requirements to his bubble, which did not contain a minyan? I'm not sure there would. There are potential issues with leining, and even more so with making birchas haTorah on such layning, but do we consider hakafos as a dvar shebekedusha that absolutely has to have a minyan? It is post gemara, so it is not so clear it can be a dvar shebekedusha, which might need to have been instituted by the Anshei Knesset Hagadola or at least not to be post Ravina and Rav Ashi (that might also turn on whether you follow the Aruch haShulchan and the Rokach, who hold that kaddish was instituted by the Anshei Knesset HaGadola, and that is what justifies its status as a dvar shebekedusha, or whether you follow the Shibbolei Ha-Leket and the teshuvas HaGeonim which seem to suggest that the whole institution of kaddish within prayer was instituted by the Geonim (and if so, whether a takana of the Geonim is and remains binding or it does not)). <> But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as something of an obligation of the tzibbur (the tzibbur would seem to be needed in order to make sure that we are making the widow happy). So to the extent that it is dependent upon simcha, then that obligation remains, even if the minhagim of the tzibbur, ie the way the tzibbur traditionally performs such simcha, might not be possible at the present time, and hence is not an obligation. -Micha Gmar Tov Chana From doniels at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 03:16:13 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:16:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur Message-ID: . R' Aryeh Frimer asked: > Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when > Davening BiYehidut > (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but > perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la > Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. R' Akiva Miller answered: > No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head: > Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it > certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice. > Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is > mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there. In a nutshell, you can see it here on Sefaria: https://tinyurl.com/y2qgtuyx It's a Mishna in Nedirim 3:1, discussed in Talmud 23a, codified in Yoreh De'a 211 to which the Ba'er Heitev decides that as long as one said it loud enough to be heard to one's own ears, it's valid. None of the commentators along the way mention publicity. The only issue they have is "Devorim She'B'Leiv" if it's whispered or thought. Along the way I learnt: You can say it ("just kidding about the Neder stuff") any time. Those who hold you don't have to say it right before making the Neder, don't give it an expiration date - IOW once a lifetime should be sufficient. Bottom line: If it works, you can chant the "futuristic" Kol Nidrei to yourself in an undertone. CLOR. Gmar Chasima Tova - Danny, not a Rabbi by any stretch of imagination. From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Sep 17 08:56:27 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:56:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Consumer Daf HaKashrus - Spices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I normally do not send out messages with attachments, but I could not locate this online. [See for attached PDF. -micha] From the pdf file > This article is an in-depth look at a specific category of vegetables: > spices. Spices refer to aromatic vegetable products used to season or > flavor foods. Less than 2% of food consumed in the United States are > spices, but what a difference that 2% makes! Without spices, all food > would be bland and unappetizing. > As mentioned, there are many spices exported by Israel, which create a > whole host of potential kashrus issues. All uncertified Israeli spices > present serious kashrus challenges in the form of tevel and shemitah. A > Mashgiach visiting a spice plant must be on the lookout for this. Because > of the aromatic and fragrant nature of spices, these spices will not > be batel in a mixture, as they are avida l'taama, added to mixtures > for taste, and anything which is added to a mixture for taste does not > become batel. This halachah is paskened by Rema in Yoreh Deah 98:8, > from the Gemara (Beitza 38b, Chulin 6a). See the attachment for much more. From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Sep 22 05:50:20 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:50:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Cheerios and Pas Yisroel Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Can one eat Cheerios during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva (ten days from Rosh Hashana to Yom Kippur) or Shabbos and Yom Tov for those who only eat Pas Yisroel on those days? What about other breakfast cereals? Must they be Pas Yisroel? A. There are differing opinions as to whether Cheerios is considered pas. The OU poskim do not consider it pas, because of the size of the individual pieces and the manner in which it is made. Likewise, wheat flake cereals are not considered ?bread-like? and therefore do not need to be pas Yisroel. Corn and Rice Cereals are, by definition, not bread items. See our Pas Yisroel List ? 5781 at OUKosher.org for OU certified Pas Yisroel brands and products. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 14:09:36 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200922210936.GD19252@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 11:36:29PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was > supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated > prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in > the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it? The SA often just echoes Chazal when the case is considered theoretical. So, if he didn't see people really trying to say Shema in la'az, the Mechaber wouldn't deal with the practical problems of trying to do so and just note that hypothetically, Chazal said it was mutar. > He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators > lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are > incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text > holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to > adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists? Or maybe just the right shade for each instance. If you get too nitpicky, you'll note that two different speakers of the same language have different memories and associations with many of their different words, and don't have bidiyuq the same things in mind when using them. Exact precision is a rabbit's hole to fall down. The question is defining "exact enough". Maybe exact enough to relay one out of multiple peshatim? WRT semitic languages, there are going to be much closer matches. So, davening in Aramaic seems much more doable than davening in a Romantic or Germanic language. > According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the > Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word > "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those > languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's > satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty > AND Was/Is/WillBe? Or maybe Moshe translated to a phrase. Or maybe, because Moshe knew which connotation of the sheim was primary in each context, he was able to pick the right translation for each. > In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my > translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3: ... > 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana, > Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe > (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written > in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167. But he pointedly does NOT say that it's a good idea even if it's not a a safeiq. So it would seem translations are only good enough when there is no better way to deal with the situation. You're comparing what he says here lekhat-chilah with his solution for a bedi'eved. BTW, I think berikh Rachmana is about fulfilling the purpose of the berachah without trying to fulfill Chazal's coinage. Like if we said you would be be meqabel ol Malkhus Shamayim by saying Shema in English, but not yotzei the actual mitzvah of Q"Sh. Because there is no "atah", and "of this bread" isn't "Who Brings bread out of the earth". It's not even a close paraphrase, never mind translation. It's not even an exactness of translation issue. Like, what if a native Hebrew speaker followed AhS OC 202 by saying "Barukh haRachaman Adon Melekh haOlam vehalachmaniah hazot". He would also avoid the risk of berakhaha levatalah and also that of the geneivah-like behavior of eating without a berakhah. > Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the > entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did > he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude > someone from a partial translation.... Why? Maybe someone would think "If I get a perfect enough translation just until 'al levavekha' or just the first pereq, at least he would be yotzei deOraisa." And SE is a different kind of problem than Shema, since its core is baqashos, not miqra. > for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:[1]72, > where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have > assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana, > "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and > established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common > among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ... > And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe, > whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include > concepts like "Was and Is and Will Be". BUT... only for some of the dinim of Sheimos. Not translations of tefillos. As you started your discussion of RMF -- he agrees with the AhS that such translations don't exist. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, http://www.aishdas.org/asp others come to love him very naturally, and Author: Widen Your Tent he does not need even a speck of flattery. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 14:23:23 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:23:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:50:14PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot > HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So while it might be that the > Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to > come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein > and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think > it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah > out).... I was taught the same line of reasoning besheim haGra. (I emailed RSMandel to double-check if it was from him, and did he have the mar'eh maqom. Got impatient holding off this reply for an answer.) >> This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked >> how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to >> celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy. > There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah, > something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and > Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be > related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the > way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah. > Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman > 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs: > > "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and > make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are > accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations > and to call to others to make a feast. *And further it is the custom* in > our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the > sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every > place according to its custom. *And further we are accustomed* to circle > with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with > the lulav *and all is because of joy*..." The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah shel torah* venohagim...") And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah". And since the Rama told you the simchah in question is that of the siyum, I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum, and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a community that year. >> Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either >> way. > But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as > something of an obligation of the tzibbur... Yes, but we don't take the sifrei Torah out at night for any other yom tov. It's not "just" simchas YT. So the question is whether I can invoke sharing in *his* simchah over finishing the Torah to participate. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search http://www.aishdas.org/asp of a spiritual experience. You are a Author: Widen Your Tent spiritual being immersed in a human - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Sep 22 16:57:21 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:57:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] forms of teshuvah Message-ID: From R' Gil Student: Medieval Ashkenazic authorities prescribed a variety of strong acts of self-induced suffering as part of the teshuvah process, including long-term fasting, lashes, exile and more. Rabbeinu Peretz (Gloss to Semak, no. 53) lists four kinds of teshuvah: 1) teshuvas charatah, in which you regret the sin; 2) teshuvas ha-geder, in which you set additional boundaries for yourself to avoid sinning in the future; 3) teshuvas ha-kasuv, in which you undergo the punishment listed in the Torah for your sin; 4) teshuvas ha-mishkal, in which you inflict yourself with pain corresponding to the amount of pleasure you enjoyed with your sin. Of these four, the first is what we consider standard teshuvah and the second is going above and beyond. The third and fourth are not - and should not be - practiced today. The Vilna Gaon's brother (Ma'alos Ha-Torah, introduction) makes clear that we cannot undergo these harsh forms of teshuvah in our time (his time, even more so in our time) and emerge physically and religiously healthy. Instead, he recommends intense Torah study. Me- what is the nature of the paradigm change claimed by the Ma'alos Ha-Torah? Gct 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 Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Tue Sep 22 15:25:17 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:25:17 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: <> Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is: ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the Torah" That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is because of the custom of making of completing the Torah. So maybe you should argue that *this* year Simchas Torah should not be called Simchas Torah, but Shmini Atzeres sheni! He does not say, as you have said "the simcha is that of completing the Torah*. << And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah".>> Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag. Most of the prohibitions however (such as not taking the sifrei Torah out for no reason, reading over and over, calling up ketanim) are because of kavod haTorah, ie kavod haTorah is the counterweight reason *not* to do these minhagim. However similar to the idea of oseh docheh lo ta'aseh, the mitzvah of simcha is able push aside certain kevod haTorah restrictions in certain circumstances, but clearly not in ones that are in fact a disgrace to the Torah, but only ones that enhance the simcha of the Torah. There is no reason for a siyum to push aside prohibitions relating to kavod haTorah. <> But he didn't he told you that is why the day has that name, not that the simcha in question is the siyum. All the different minhagim, including, but not limited to, having the siyum, are because of simcha. << I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum, and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a community that year.>> Then he need not have listed them as "v'od nehagu" etc <> But the gemora learns the simcha for yom tov acharon shel chag out of a separate pasuk to the psukim that we learn it for Sukkos. Why would Shmini Atzeres need its only special pasuk with its own special limud, why does the Torah not combine it with the simcha learnt out for sukkos? The mishna understands that one is obligated in the same way just like the seven days of sukkos so why are they not combined in the Torah? The logical answer is because there is something somewhat different about the nature of this simcha (and in fact one might be tempted to darshen the ach, not as the gemora does to exclude the first night of sukkos, but to say that it is a day of simcha only, not simcha and sukkah and arba minim, but only simcha). The custom, and the Rema makes it very clear that it is a custom, of making the siyum is very late, given that we know that a three year cycle was in existence for many years, and yet the descriptions of what was going on on Simchas Torah well predate the universality of the one year cycle (descriptions amongst the Geonim, inter alia). The fundamental mitzvah on Shmini Atzeres/Simchas Torah is therefore ach sameach! The interesting question is why in chutz l'aretz, other than amongst those Sefardim who start the hakafot on Shmini Artzeres, we do *not* take the sifrei Torah out on Shmini Atzeres. However, to the extent that one is sitting in the sukkah on Shmini Artzeret, and it is still thereby linked to sukkos, then maybe it makes sense that in chutz l'aretz, the day that is ach sameach, with no link to what went before, is Simchas Torah, despite it only being yom tov sheini shel golios. <> But only if you assume the linkage that, against the explicit language of the Rema, the cause of all the other minhagim is the siyum, including where they are otherwise in violation of kevod haTorah, rather than that the special simcha due to the special pasuk is the cause of all the minhagim including the siyum. GCT! -Micha Regards Chana From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 03:12:16 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 06:12:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? Message-ID: . Several posters referenced the Rama, which R"n Chana Luntz translated as: > The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they > rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of > the Torah Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to our private learning of the parshios, such as those who learned the parsha each week by reading it themselves from a chumash while the shuls were closed? Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv, but by taking the time and effort to actually mouth every single word myself (rather than just listen to the kriah and let my mind dwell on this pasuk and that pasuk), I feel that my learning of Chumash this year was considerably better than in years past, and I'll have no problem celebrating that, to whatever extent our rav allows. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 23 05:51:56 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 12:51:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Medicine on Yom Kippur Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May a person who is ill, but is not in mortal danger (choleh she?ein bo sakana) consume unsweetened medicine on Yom Kippur? A. This is the subject of a dispute between the Acharonim. According to Shaagas Aryeh (75-76), one is not permitted to take medicine on Yom Kippur. Even though medicine is not a ?food?, and the prohibition to consume medicine is Rabbinic in nature ? which is normally waived for people who are ill, nonetheless, by swallowing the pill , the individual demonstrates that he or she considers it as food, and it is therefore forbidden on Yom Kippur. K?sav Sofer (OC 111) strongly disagrees and maintains that consuming medicine when ill does not demonstrate that it is a food item, and therefore medicine may be swallowed on Yom Kippur. Igros Moshe (OC 111:91) concurs with this ruling as well. If a person must drink water to swallow a pill, contemporary poskim recommend adding a bitter substance to water, such as a significant amount of lemon juice or vinegar, so that the water has a very unpleasant taste. This was the opinion of Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul, (Ohr L?Tziyon, IV 15:8), Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (Ashrei Ha?Ish III 23:230) and Rav Nissim Karelitz (Chut HaShani, Yom Kippur p. 145). If the pill is sweet, it is considered to be a food independently of its medicinal properties. In such instances, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach advised that the pill should be wrapped in a tissue and swallowed in that manner (Shemira Shabbos KeHilchasa 39:8; Halichos Shlomo, Yom HaKippurim 5:8). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 11:23:34 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 14:23:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200923182334.GA22665@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:25:17PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing >> the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah >> shel torah* venohagim...") > Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is: ... > Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah > because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the > Torah" > That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is > because of the custom of making of completing the Torah.... Because "shesimeichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh legamrah shel Torah". The simchah and making the mishteh are for the completion of the Torah. And thus the name of the holiday reflects that simchah. ... > Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha > on yom tov acharon shel chag. But the Rama doesn't say simchas YT, just "mishum simchah". OTOH, as we saw, the Rama opens by speaking of the simchah and mishteh of completing the Torah. So, if he just says "simchah" afterwards, why would I think it is anything but the "semeichin ... legamra shel Torah" already brought into the discussion? You're assuming the Rama changes topics without telling us. (Of course, I didn't think any of this out before my first post. I just read the sources, not thinking about other possibilities until it became a discussion. But I can't say that you convinced me yet that I brought too many unconscious assumptions to the table, that your read is comparably viable.) On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 06:12:16AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public > laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to > our private learning of the parshios... It refers to the completion that occured that morning, which was indeed leining. The AhS ad loc says the party is traditionally paid for with pledges by the Chasanim. Not, as I see done today, that the qiddush the next two Shabbosos are. > Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv... A siyum is a siyum. People make a siyum on a mesechtes gemara that they had no particular chiyuv to learn over learning something else. I just don't think we were mesaymim what the minhagim were established to celebrate. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. http://www.aishdas.org/asp If you want time, you must make it. Author: Widen Your Tent - Charles Buxton - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Wed Sep 23 15:37:44 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 23:37:44 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: > Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have > simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag. And RMB replied: <> I suppose the reason it seems to me obvious that mishum simcha, means the simcha of Yom Tov, is because: a) when the poskim say something is meshum simcha in the context of yom tov, they mean the mitzvah of simcha - for example: the Levush and the Bach (and numerous others, I believe) hold that the hakafos of the lulav during sukkos is mishum simcha (or at least the hakafos in the Beis HaMikdash, come directly out of the pasuk mandating simcha, and we then do them as a zecher. In that context, various rishonim and achronim discuss whether an avel is permitted to do hakafos, ie whether the simcha of the day pushes of the fact that a avel is forbidden from simcha. And in all these discussions, when they talk about simcha or mishum simcha, simchas Yom Tov is understood. b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas Torah. But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion would need to be had. c) On the other hand, the obligation to have a seudas mitzvah on finishing learning comes from a statement in gemora shabbas (118b-119a) where Abaye says: he should be rewarded because whenever he heard about a tzurba d'rabanan finishing a mesechta, he would make a yom tov for the Rabbis, which is understood to mean a seudas mitzvah. This is listed as part of a whole list of various Amoraim stating what it is that they believe they should get a special reward for, including being careful in known mitzvos (such a tefillin and tzitzis, and three meals on shabbas) and what are identified as good minhagim (such as not going daled amos with his head uncovered). It is really not clear into which category Abaye's statement falls. And while the Rema in Yore Deah siman 246, si'if 26 does say that " when one finishes a mesechet it is a mitzvah to rejoice and to make a feast, and it is called a seudas mitzvah" - to hang everything we do on Simchas Torah on this one statement in the gemora seems like a breathtaking chiddush. And think about it this way. If I were to finish a mesechta, here today, does that mean I can take the sifrei Torah out of the aron, dance around with them, call up some children (and some people together at once, making the brachos at once), read multiple times, take the sifrei Torah out into the street, (and, if it was shabbas, dance even if in general I held that dancing on shabbas is not permitted, as per the Shulchan Aruch?). Given that the essential siyum that is described in the gemora and referred to by the Rema is on a mesechet in Shas, then all this should be permissible on any day of the week, not just Simchas Torah. Because mai nafka minah. So I suppose it seems to me obvious that all the heterim the Rema refers to cannot be because of the simcha of the siyum, especially as the heterim were in place before the siyum was necessarily happening, historically, which again seems to suggest that the one does not cause the other. I do see that in fact the Aruch HaShulchan seems to support you, as in Orech Chaim siman 669 si'if 2 he says in the middle of the piece: "And also we are accustomed that two are called up together and bless, and even though it is not correct in any event because of the joy of the siyum they do so ." - whereas I would have thought he should say the joy of Yom Tov. So the Aruch HaShulchan would seem to be supporting your position. But still, I cannot see, if the Aruch HaShulchan is saying this, how he can be correct, because the consequences must surely be that any time there is a siyum, such a heter would then be permissible, or at least tolerable. I just can't see how this is right. I cannot see how, even if the whole of klal yisrael this year decided that we were going to have a siyum on kriyas hatorah when we had had a full year since last lockdown (ie assuming a vaccine became widely available and was effective), somewhere in the middle of the year, it would it be mutar as part of holding that siyum on krias haTorah on an ordinary Shabbat, to have the usual Simchas Torah heterim. According to you it would be, but I cannot see that this can be right, and I struggle to believe the Rema would authorise it were he here today. <> Not really. Given that mishum simcha in the context of a Yom Tov is logically understood to mean simchas yom tov, without the modifier, the Rema is just explaining in greater detail why we do everything we do before. That *includes* holding the completion of the krias hatorah cycle on Simchas Torah. ie we arrange to have the siyum on Simchas Torah, *because* of the nature of Simchas Torah, not that Simchas Torah is the way it is because of the siyum of finishing the reading cycle. -Micha Gmar Tov Chana From zev at sero.name Wed Sep 23 17:48:28 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: On 23/9/20 6:37 pm, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an > avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas > Torah. But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion > would need to be had. Last year, when I was an avel, I was told that for Hoshanos I should not go around at all, and should lend my arba minim to someone else who hasn't got them, and have him go around in my place. (Or at least that's how I understood it; it may be that lending the arba minim was simply a suggestion to do someone a chesed, since I wasn't using them.) For Simchas Torah I was told that I could go around with the group, but should not hold a sefer torah while doing so; after the hakafa I could take a sefer and dance with it. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781 zev at sero.name "May this year and its curses end May a new year and its blessings begin" From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 25 05:07:22 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 12:07:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?What_foods_should_one_eat_at_the_seuda_?= =?windows-1252?q?ha=92mafsekes_=28last_meal=29_on_erev_Yom_Kippur=3F?= Message-ID: Please see https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/foods-one-eat-seuda-hamafsekes-last-meal-erev-yom-kippur/?category=yom-kippur&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shsh%20Haazinu%205781%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=32573763&spUserID=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&spJobID=1784317155&spReportId=MTc4NDMxNzE1NQS2 What foods should one eat at the seuda ha?mafsekes (last meal) on erev Yom Kippur? | OU Kosher Certification Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 608:4) writes that on erev Yom Kippur, one should eat light foods that are easily digestible, so one will be able to daven on Yom Kippur with proper concentration. There is a common custom to dip challah in honey. Mishnah... oukosher.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emteitz at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 13:32:06 2020 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 16:32:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What will be with Simchas Torah Message-ID: The comment was made, "Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to our private learning of the parshios, such as those who learned the parsha each week by reading it themselves from a chumash while the shuls were closed? Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv, . . ." It isn't? See OC 385:1. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Sep 29 05:08:16 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:08:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is an Esrog Muktza on Shabbos Message-ID: >From today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. This year, the first day of Sukkos is Shabbos, and there is no mitzvah of lulav and esrog. Can I show my neighbor my beautiful esrog, or is it muktza? Q. Shulchan Aruch (OC 658:2) writes that a lulav is muktzah on Shabbos. Since there is no mitzvah of lulav and esrog on Shabbos, a lulav serves no purpose, and it is mukztah like other tree branches. However, an esrog may be moved, since it has a function; one may smell the fruit. (There is a dispute if the beracha on fragrances is recited when smelling an esrog on Sukkos, since the primary function of an esrog on Sukkos is for the mitzvah of lulav and esrog and not for fragrance. To avoid the uncertainty of reciting a beracha, the Shulchan Aruch recommends not smelling an esrog on Sukkos. Nonetheless the Mishnah Berurah (658:5) writes there is no restriction to smell an esrog on Shabbos and recite a beracha, because there is no mitzvah on that day.) Since, it has a function, it is not muktza, and it may be moved for any purpose. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt?l (Shmiras Shabbos K?Hilchaso 22: note 62) writes that today, since people are protective of their esrogim and will not pass them around to be smelled, they are categorized as ?muktza machmas chisaron kis? (expensive or delicate items that are generally stored in a safe location), which may not be moved for any reason on Shabbos. The Aruch Hashulchan (OC 308:17) appears to rule this way as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 03:05:03 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 06:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: . I have long been bothered by why we cannot start or stop Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/geshem without a formal announcement , yet no announcements at all are required for starting and stopping any of the other changes to our tefilos. This past spring, in Avodah 38:24, I quoted a teshuva from Rav Hershel Schachter, where he tackled this question. (It is titled "Piskei Corona #9: Hallel on Pesach Night and Tefillas Tal". "Our Rav" refers to Rav JB Soloveitchik z"l; the parentheses are Rav Schachter's.) > There is a big difference between She'eila (V'sen Tal Umatar > Livracha) and Hazkara (Mashiv Haruach). See what I wrote in > the name of our Rav in MiPeninei HaRav (section Tefila, number > 5), that changing the descriptions of Hashem (from Mashiv > Haruach to Morid Hatal) requires Reshus Hatzibur, and an > individual is not allowed to make changes on his own. But I still don't understand what makes Mashiv Haruach so unusual. According to Rav Schachter's logic, shouldn't we also need Reshus Hatzibur to change the description of Hashem between HaKeil HaKadosh and HaMelech HaKadosh? Moreover, why is this Reshus Hatzibur required *every* *single* *time* that we start or stop Mashiv Haruach? Why isn't it sufficient that Chazal ordained that we start it every year on Shmini Atzeres, and stop it every year on Pesach? I once questioned how our Yom Tovim have any d'Oraisa status at all: If there's no Beis Din to declare that a certain day was Rosh Chodesh Tishrei, then where does Yom Kippur's status come from? The answer I got (Eliyahu Kitov, The Book of Our Heritage, v 1 pg 230) was that Hillel's beis din was mekadesh in *advance* all future Roshei Chadashim that would be calculated according to his rules. According to this reasoning, the required Reshus Hatzibur doesn't have to come from the gabbai or the chazan. It comes from Chazal, who ordained this schedule of changes to the Amidah, so when the calendar says to make a change, my requirement to do so comes automatically, whether I'm in shul or not, just like for all the other changes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Sep 30 12:02:34 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:02:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] fear of death Message-ID: Sheldon Solomon is a social psychologist at Skidmore College. He earned his B.A. from Franklin and Marshall College and his doctoral degree from the University of Kansas. He is best known for developing terror management theory, along with Jeff Greenberg and Tom Pyszczynski which is concerned with how humans deal with their own sense of mortality Sheldon Solomon - "I feel like there's a real sense in which doing these studies and writing books and lecturing has been my way of avoiding directly confronting my anxieties by turning it (me - fear of death) into an intellectual exercise" [Me - sounds like it could've been said by R'Chaim] Is this a common approach in orthodox circles Gmar tov 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 llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 30 06:10:27 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:10:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Question for Today's Times Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May one fulfill the mitzvah of picking up their lulav and esrog while wearing gloves? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 651:7) writes that if a person wrapped a cloth around their hand and picked up the lulav, some say one has not fulfilled the mitzvah. This is because the cloth is a chatzitza (barrier) between the hand and the lulav. The Mishnah Berurah (651:33) writes that the same applies if one is wearing gloves. He also explains that the reason Shulchan Aruch writes ?some say?, is because this is a matter of dispute among Rishonim. The opinion of the Ran is that if one wrapped their hands with cloth or put on gloves, the cloth is viewed as an extension of one?s hand, and as such, it is not a barrier. Therefore, if one did pick up the lulav while wearing gloves, the lulav should be lifted again to fulfill the mitzvah in accordance with those who view the glove as a chatziza. However, a new beracha would not be said because the mitzvah was already fulfilled according to the Ran. One who must wear gloves in shul should recite the berachos and shake the lulav at home before coming to shul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Jul 1 05:12:56 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:12:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ben Noach and mitzvas kiddush hashem Message-ID: <043501d64fa0$f4d21a60$de764f20$@touchlogic.com> I believe a few issues ago someone asked if benei noach are obligated in mitzvas kiddush hashem (to be moser nefesh to avoid their 7 mitzvos, as we are obligated wrt murder/arayos/AZ) See toldos Noah at length on this subject. Pg. 247-270 Email offline if you want scans.. Are they commanded in mitzvas kiddush hashem (no - rambam) Are they allowed to be moser nefesh for mitzvas kiddush hashem (machlokes) Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid killing someone (machlokes) Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid abortion. q etc From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 1 09:40:03 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 16:40:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux Message-ID: I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? 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 mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Jul 1 15:31:10 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:31:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status Message-ID: <052501d64ff7$52b1d1b0$f8157510$@touchlogic.com> https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/kosher-appliances/467/shattered-dre ams/ ... What is induction cooking? Induction cooking is a revolutionary energy efficient way of cooking without heat. How do you cook without heat? The answer is with electro-magnetic energy. The conventional burner is replaced with a coil of tightly wound copper wire under the glass cooktop. Turning on the "burner" sends electro-magnetic energy through the coil. If you placed your hand on the coil area, you would feel nothing. If you placed an aluminum pan on the same area you would still feel nothing. However, by placing an iron skillet or a pot with an iron core or magnetized stainless steel on the cooktop, the magnetized skillet completes the magnetic connection and the electro-magnetic field of energy transfers directly into the pan. This causes the iron molecules to move very rapidly, giving off heat. In turn, the cookware cooks the food. Lifting the pan off of the cooktop breaks the magnetic connection, and you will no longer be cooking. The cooktop will be heated by the "magnetic" pot or pan, but it does not get hot from the coil. Consequently, any spill onto the ceramic cooktop surface will be a result of an irui kli rishon, spillage from a hot pot, not a heated cooktop as you would have in conventional cooking. Hence, if one would want to kasher the cooktop, it could be accomplished by a lesser means of kasherization, irui kli rishon.10 Although induction cooking offers a koshering benefit, the cooktop cannot be used on Shabbos or Yom Yov because the cooking connection is made once the pot is put onto the coil area. Similarly, one would not be able to remove the pot from the cooktop on Shabbos or Yom Tov because one would be "disconnecting" the magnetic field by removing the pot. While the ability to kasher an induction cooktop is an advantage, the disadvantage of not being able to use it on Shabbos or Yom Tov makes this cooktop impractical, unless one has more than one cooktop in the kitchen (an induction for during the week, and a non-induction for Shabbos and Yom Tov). As with every new advent of technology, one balabusta's dream is another balabusta's nightmare. From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 03:43:44 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:43:44 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 3:00 PM Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was > forbidden. So at least for Ashkenazim this whole issue should not > exist. Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut. > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for the gezeira seem to apply. Even for Sephardim, since the SA is meikel in seif 4 in the case of servants in a beit yisrael. Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 15:43:22 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:43:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:27:08AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > RMB writes: >> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and that >> the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / minhag she'eino >> chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done. > So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b: > Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, v'Rav > Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: > Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? People practice like REbY. Why? R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example of BY chalaq R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah I presume you would say something like: R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: it'r universal pesaq R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something entirely different? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. Author: Widen Your Tent - Rachel Levin Varnhagen - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From cantorwolberg at cox.net Thu Jul 2 05:57:12 2020 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:57:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Something to Ponder Message-ID: To paraphrase this profound statement below by R? Yitzchok from the Talmud R.H. (16b) which is quite timely: Any year that begins without the straightforward, clear and unequivocal tekiya, will sadly end with the wavering sound of defeat ? the terua. ??"? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 05:12:53 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:12:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: . In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this is the one I want to ask about.) > The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation > of Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana > (danger). Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the > Mishnah, shuls were located outside of the cities where it was > not safe to be alone at night. The Rabbis were concerned that > people who came late to shul might be left alone while finishing > to daven. To give latecomers a chance to catch up and finish > davening with everyone else, Chazal extended the davening by > adding Mei'ein Sheva. I've heard this same explanation many times from many sources, but I've never understood it. Mei'ein Sheva is shorter than a single page in most siddurim - does its presence really lengthen the service significantly? If the shuls were outside the cities, it must have taken a certain amount of time to get home, and even to get to the outskirts of the city. Were the latecomers unable to catch up to their neighbors? Were the on-time people unwilling to stay in shul for the one or two minutes needed for the latecomers to finish? If this problem was sufficiently significant for Chazal to enact this measure, there were probably several latecomers every week, not just a single latecomer now and then. If so, couldn't the latecomers simply wait for each other, even if the on-time people rushed to get home? There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better? Thank you in advance. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 07:14:04 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:14:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200702141404.GB25994@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 01:43:44PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was > > forbidden.... > > exist. Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut. > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and > pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh" > it includes any form of cooking by heat... Or, any form of cooking by fire, whether broiling, roasting or boiling or frying in water or oil that are heated by fire. For an example that predates the taqaah, solar cooking. Does a rishon deal with the question of eating an egg cooked in the sand that was placed there by a non-Jew? And, as I opened in my first response, it's not just the Rama; "al ha'eish" and variants are common in the discussion. I don't think it's an Ashkenazi thing, just because the SA doesn't use the idiom himself. > That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a > Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for > the gezeira seem to apply.... The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for refu'ah beShabbos. Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking via fire. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, http://www.aishdas.org/asp eventually it will rise to the top. Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 2 07:13:40 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:13:40 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> > RMB wrote: >> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and >> that the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / >> minhag she'eino chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done. And I wrote: > So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b: > Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, > v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: > Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? <> Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim. If you were having a shiur about the halacha of meat, it would be remiss of you to mention the one, and not the other. And if you were giving a shiur to both Ashkenazim and Sephardim, I hope you would say - CYLOR [the L of course standing for "local"], rather than saying "we pasken" one way or the other. Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel, you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like. There are other opinions, and they might have been brought, but the end of the shiur would say - follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov, whereas I would hope that would not be what you would say regarding BY chalaq. <> But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>. Glatt is a tricky one, because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin. And the question then comes down to, why is it that someone keeps glatt, is it because he wants to be machmir for those who think it is really following the BY's iqur hadin, or is it because that is what his community does. If he is just doing it because he lives with other Hungarians so does it, but he really thinks the Rema is right, and it is a chumra that the people came up with (which you can argue it is, particularly because glatt is not the same as BY chalak) then it is a minhag garua. But if the community does it because they are really holding like the BY (at least to an extent), despite the Rema, I would say it is a minhag chashuv. I thought the better example of what you were saying is milchigs on Shavuos, which has no Rav psak behind it, but which has Rabbinic approval in the form of the Rema. That shows the distinction between what I thought you were arguing and what I am much more clearly. Ie that according to you minhag chashuv has no Rabbinic psak source, it is something the people came up with, but it is a religious practice that the Rabbis then approved, whereas I am saying that for a minhag chashuv to be a minhag chashuv, there needs to be a rabbinic psak that the people are relying on, even if other communities hold differently. And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, and the community then followed. It is not some religious idea, like milchigs on Shavuos, that the community came up with independently and then was approved. If R' Eliezer or Rabbi Meir had never paskened the way they did, then the minhag would never have arisen. That, I thought, was the fundamental distinction between what I am saying and you are saying. That I was saying to be a minhag chashuv, it has to be originally Rav psak derived, that people then followed. Whereas I understood you as saying that a psak is a psak, and different from a minhag chashuv, which had to be people derived, ie bottom up, albeit with Rav approval post fact. And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag? <> But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good thing. Especially as we discussing what are needed for an eruv (a halachic device), or whether the kohanim should duchan during Mincha and nei'ila of Yom Kippur. These aren't things like going around with baskets on your head, or squeezing fruit. They are religious acts. <> Yes. << R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq>> Yes, although I prefer to phrase it the psak that the people as a community [I prefer that to the term "local" as it sounds limited, while communities can be large or small] have adopted following Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, or Rabbi Meir [out of the options available], making it the minhag chashuv. <> I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in psak. To the point where their psak is not a valid psak. The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. Regarding R' Yochanan I believe I am following Rashi. Both Rashi, Tosfos and the Rosh refer us to Ta'anis 26b where it explains that if it is the halacha, you teach it "b'pirka" - ie you learn it out in the public halachic discussions. If it is minhag, you don't teach it b'pirka, but if someone comes to you and asks, you posken that way, and where it says nahagu - one does not rule this way, just "I avid, avid, v'lo mehadrinan lei". And Rashi in Ta'anis, says: U'man d'amar nahagu [ie Rabbi Yochanan] - mashma: hen nohagu me'alehen, aval aino ikar. Uminhag mashmar - Torat minhag yesh b'davar, uminhag kosher hu. The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher. That rather sounds like either it is a minhag taus [which in Yerushalmi speak is aino minhag, such as not working all motzei shabbas, even though this is clearly a religious practice] or a norm that has halachic impact. But it should not be dignified with the name minhag. However over in Eruvin Rashi (quoted approvingly there by Tosfos and the Rosh) uses the language - aval i avide lo machinan byadayhu - ie if they do it, we don't protest. That sounds much more like the minhagim that the Tosfos and the Rosh were discussing in Pesachim as being minhag lo chasuv (ie tolerated, and not gone against in front of, ie you are not to rule publically in front of them, but you don't actually have to keep), which is contrasted to a minhag chasuv. Tosfos in Brachos 52b (d"h nahagu ha'am) draws a different distinction between the situation over in Ta'anis and in Eruvin (and elsewhere, such as Rosh Hashana) and the situation in Brachos where Rabbi Yochanan again says nahagu ha'am [like Beis Hillel in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda - the subject matter being whether we say the blessing over the spices before or after the blessing over the flame in havdala]. Because we [and I think we all in fact, as Tosfos says] l'chatchila go according to this R' Yochanan that we make the blessing over the spices before the flame, and yet it would seem from Eruvin 62b (as understood by Ta'anis) that l'chatchila one shouldn't follow where it says nahagu ha'am, just that where the people are so accustomed, we don't make them go back if they did it wrong (so in the case of the havdala, one would think one should really bless the flame first, and then the spices, just if people did it the other way around, we wouldn't make them repeat havdala). And Tosfos' answer there in Brochos is that over in Eruvin, the nahagu ha'am is contrasted to someone saying "halacha" which means "halacha l'chatchila u'morin ken" and therefore when somebody else says nahagu they are meaning bideved, "aval hacha yachol l'hios d'ain kan ele nahagu greida". Note however that in the case in Brachos everybody agrees the halacha is like Beis Hillel (versus Beis Shammai). The issue at stake is how to understand Beis Hillel - like Rabbi Yehuda or like Rabbi Meir. And while Rabbi Meir would seem to be the stam mishna, we follow Rabbi Yehuda. That feels to me less "al pi Talmud chacham" - it is more how the relevant Talmud Chacham understood another set of talmudei chachamim. Whereas the case in Eruvin 62b is regarding what R' Eliezer ben Yaa'kov himself held (regarding non-Jews assuring a courtyard for eruv purposes, if there was only one Jew) versus Rabbi Meir, or in Eruvin 72 (do you need a shituf and an eruv), or Ta'anis (whether on Yom Kippur the Kohanim should bless at Mincha and ne'ila) ie is a matter of direct psak versus psak. With the sense that according to Rabbi Yochanan the psak in question is plain wrong, and knowledgeable people should ignore it. I think you could thus alternatively argue that Brachos is a classic minhag garua that happened to accord with how Rabbi Yehuda understood Beis Hillel, which in the absence of a clear psak either way, we follow the order the people decided upon, for their own reasons, whereas in the other cases, it is a minhag taus, that the psak is clearly wrong in halachic terms, but because there is this da'as yachid position out there, the hachamim were not prepared, in bideved situations, to make people go back and redo. Or you can say that actually over in Brachos Rabbi Yochanan, while using the term nahagu ha'am, given that it was not used in contrast to minhag k', meant really to say minhag k' - making it a minhag chashuv. Or maybe in fact we just ignore Rabbi Yochanan's expression. And what we are actually following is the ma'ase shehaya of Rava. In any event, for me the key fact is the Rav Huna defines minhag explicitly as going according to a psak, something you, I believe, said couldn't happen. How you understand Rabbi Yochanan, who specifically does not use the term minhag, just nagu ha'am for something which (leaving aside the situation in Brachos) he disapproves of, is secondary. -Micha Regards Chana From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 07:36:54 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:36:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:13:40PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote: >> Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, >> v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: >> Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? >> <> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example >> of BY chalaq > Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is not > what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim... You totally lost me. Neither Shemu'el's nor R Yehudah's "we" are Askenazim or Separadim. ... > Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we > pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel, > you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben > Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like... We are in agreement. >> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt > But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common religious > practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>... Which is exactly what I have R Huna saying here. The actual halakhah is lenient, the hamon am in practice are nohagim to be stringent like REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the stringency. It's not din, but it's a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval -- a minhag chashuv. > Glatt is a tricky one, because of > the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin... Still, Hungarians are following it as minhag, and are more lenient than the Sepharadi half of the world BECAUSE it is "just" minhag. To them. The issue you raise is a distraction from explaining the gemara. > And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely > and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi > Meir, and the community then followed... > And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as > expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' > Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario, > and yet it has the definition of minhag? After the rabbinate said you didn't have to. So in that sense it is "bottom up". The masses chose to do something extrahalachic. >> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah > But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a > minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good > thing.... By "common" hanhagah tovah I meant in contrast to any kind of minhag. Something many pious people do, not the masses. Like learning all night on Shavuos in Lithuania circa 1890. But in principle, even if R Huna meant everyone was doing it: Why would hanhagah tovah mean that the rabbis endorsed it? And I think you then agree with this "in princple, when you write: >> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He >> can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi >> talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something >> entirely different? > I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact > something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a > non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in > certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are > accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The point being here, is > that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in > psak. To the point where their psak is not a valid psak. The problem > being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and > have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. R Yochanan can say something is a hanhagah tovah and not a pesaq nor even an actual minhag. > The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice > with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher... Which according to me is what "minhag garua" means. Whereas you're saying that R Yochanan refers to it as a hanhagah, but is not calling it a minhag garua. Despite the common shoresh. So we agree on w to understand this machloqes, we disagree with what to call each position. To me, Shemu'el and R Yehudah, by talking about pesaq aren't talking about minhag chashuv. To you there are. R Huna is definitely talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq. Which to me is a minhag chashuv and to you a minhag garua. And R Yochanan is talking about a practies that doesn't rise up to that level. Which to me is a minhag garua and to you not even that much. It's all just in the labels, but that changes how we read the rishonim. That is why I ignored all the gemaras you cited that don't use the /nhg/ shoresh. The rest of your post argues for something we agree about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. http://www.aishdas.org/asp All that is left to us is Author: Widen Your Tent to be as human as possible while we are here. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From zev at sero.name Thu Jul 2 08:08:02 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 11:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking > and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul > shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking > with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the food gets hot of its own accord. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 2 11:51:19 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:51:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <003001d650a1$c6ab7350$540259f0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: >> <> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example >> of BY chalaq > Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is > not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim... <> You wrote the words "parallel to my example of BT chalaq" - see above. I responded to *your* example of BY chalaq - because you said that "R' Yehuda amar Shemuel: that's what we pasken - is parallel to my example of BY chalaq" I totally agree that neither Shemuel's nor R' Yehuda's "we" are Ashenazim or Sephardim - but *you* said that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is parallel to your example of BY chalaq (which you contrasted to glatt), and BY chalaq versus glatt is about Ashkenazim and Sephardim. If you agree that BY chalaq is not a parallel, then there is no need for this discussion. But because of the parallel that you brought, I couldn't (and can't) see how you can make the statement below (which you say you agree with): > Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is > what we pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda > amar Shemuel, you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow > R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like... If we agree that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is *not* parallel to BY chalaq, then we can agree we understand R'Yehuda amar Shmuel the same. >> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like >> glatt > But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common > religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>... <> Err, ReBY is actually the lenient one (he says you need two Jews living in a chatzer to assur it for carrying). Rabbi Meir is the stringent one (he says you only need one Jew and the chatzer is assur). So transposing your explanation, but with the correct way round, do you agree that, "the actual halacha is strict, the hamon am are in practice nohagim to be lenient like REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the leniency. It is not din, but it is a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval - a minhag chasuv"? Now do you think that if the people did not have ReBY to rely on, but had just come up with this by themselves, against the halacha of Rabbi Meir, Rav Huna would be so tolerant? If yes, then why did he phrase it as minhag k'RebY? Why didn't he say that if there is only one Jew in the courtyard, the minhag is to carry (because it doesn't' matter whether ReBY said so or not)? But if it *does* matter that ReBY said so, then you need more than just the people coming up with this idea of only one Jew living on the chatzer themselves. You need ReBY, or some other Rav, to have said so, followed by community acceptance to have it become a minhag. > Glatt is a tricky one, > because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin... > And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as > expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' > Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated > scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag? <> There were two different piskei halacha out there. ReBY (the lenient one) and R' Meir (the stringent one). R' Yehuda amar Shmuel states emphatically that ReBY is right, Halachically, and that the halacha is like him. R' Huna appears not to agree, otherwise he would have said what R' Yehuda amar Shemuel said. Rather, he accepts that the people having made the choice to go for the lenient position as a valid minhag. It is partially bottom up in that the people have made a choice between Psak A and Psak B, and decided to follow Psak A, in this case the lenient psak, but I do not believe they have decided to do something extrahalachic independent of there being two piskei halacha out there. It is the same scenario as following R' Yossi for milk and chicken, or Rabbi Eliezer for cutting the wood to make the knife to do the bris on shabbas. Or moving a lit candle on shabbas. Or working or not working erev pesach morning. Each case is the same underlying scenario: there were a range of piskei halacha out there. And certain communities, or sometimes the whole people, decided to follow one psak over another (even though in pure halachic terms that isn't necessarily the halacha). That is what makes it a minhag chasuv, as articulated by the Ri and the Rosh, ie that it is al pi Talmud chacham, and not just something the people came up with on their own, even where the people can provide religious justification. RMB: >> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah Chana: > But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a > minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a > good thing.... <> *Hanhaga tova* is *your* language, not mine. I assume you mean R' Yochanan here, not R' Huna, because you are the one who applied the words hanhaga tova to R' Yochanan in a previous post. I don't at all think that R' Yochanan is describing what he thinks of as a "hanhaga tova". I think (and I believe Rashi and Tosfos agree with me) that in this context if you have to use the term hanhaga, then he believes he is describing a hanhaga ra. <> No idea what you mean here. >> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? >> He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY >> is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to >> mine or something entirely different? > I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact > something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a > non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish > people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things > people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The > point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is > actually flat out wrong in psak. To the point where their psak is not > a valid psak. The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the > people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. <> He could, but in the context, where he is dealing with a situation where there is a lenient psak and a stringent psak, and where the people are going according to the lenient psak, he is clearly not saying that. He is saying it wrong what the people are doing, but if you come across somebody who has done it, they either don't have to reverse what they have done, or you don't need to create a fuss (as they have what he considers a da'as yachid to rely on). Depending on which Rashi you follow (and presumably Rashi/Tosfos in Eruvin had a different girsa in Ta'anis, given that they don't quote "not reversing", but "not protesting"). > The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this > practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher... <> Hanhaga was, as mentioned, your language, not mine. I said that one interpretation of Rabbi Yochanan is a minhag garua - that is if you hold that it is something that one shouldn't protest. Just like all the other cases in Pesachim where the rabbis said not to protest the minhagim. However if it is something one should protest, just that one doesn't make people do things again (ie our girsa in Ta'anis), then that appears to be less than a minhag garua (more like a minhag taus). <> No, I don't think so. <> No, I never said that, and I don't think so. In the case of Shmuel and R Yehuda we are talking about psak. <> No. To me what R' Huna is talking about is also minhag chashuv. I didn't think you agreed with that, but am fine if you do. If you agree that this is a minhag chashuv, then it would seem that what we disagree about is whether or not Rav Huna is "talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq". You say definitely, ie "definitely talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq". I don't think this is right at all. I believe Rav Huna is talking about a common practice performed by the people *in light of ReBY's psak* Which is precisely why he phrases it as "minhag k'ReBY". Because the fact that there was a psak from ReBY is critical to his understanding. It is what makes it a minhag choshuv (and not a minhag garua). Just as the Ri and the Rosh and the Shach say that the definition of a minhag chasuv is that it is "al pi talmid chacham". This is "al pi talmid chacham" - the psak of ReBY, which is key to what drove the people. No ReBY, no such minhag. And R' Huna is expressing this clearly by linking the minhag with the psak of ReBY. <> Not quite. If we didn't have the girsa we do in Ta'anis, ie we had the girsa that Rashi and Tosfos in Eruvin seem to have had, I would say this was a minhag garua. Problem is, our girsa in Ta'anis doesn't just say, we don't protest, but we don't make them do over again or go back (given that in Ta'anis we are talking about kohanim duchaning at nei'lah, presumably that means we don't have the Shatz resay the non duchaning language, after the kohanim have ostensibly duchened, or make the kohanim sit down once they have said the bracha). That suggests that we do in fact protest if we can get to them before they get started duchening. I don't think something that the chachamim were prepared to protest, even if the view they are protesting is based on the psak of a Talmud Chacham, can be considered any kind of minhag, except perhaps a minhag taus. <> I agree it is all in the labels, but I thought there was something more fundamental here. My understanding of your position was that if the people were following a particular psak (such as the people following the psak of ReBY or the people following the psak of Rabbi Yehuda not to work on the morning of erev pesach), that could not be called minhag. Rathein your view minhag, including minhag choshuv, had to be something that was generated by the people themselves, like milchigs on Shavuos, ie completely bottom up. That is why I could not see how you characterised what R' Huna said, of minhag k'ReBY as minhag, as it didn't seem to fit. Whereas my understanding of a minhag chashuv was that it needed to have at its root a psak of a Rav, with the bottom up aspect of it being the people's, or a community of people's, decision to take on that particular psak, even in the face of disagreement from other Rabbonim. That seems to fit perfectly with Rav Huna's statement of minhag k'ReBY. I thus understand a completely bottom up minhag as falling within the category of minhag garua (or just minhag)- although even within that category, there are those that have strong rabbinic approval, and those that have weak to non-existent rabbinic approval (depending on how garua they are). But like your minhag chashuv, my minhag garua does have to relate to something religious/halachic, even though at some point one reaches a situation where the rabbis come out full force against what the people are doing. The reason I am so vague about the line between minhag garua and minhag taus, is that this line seems very difficult to define, Ie at what point does a minhag which is very garua tip into a minhag taus seems hard for me to pinpoint (I have been looking at two cases of very dodgy minhagim, namely women in states of tuma'ah - both involving, inter alia, women not going to shul - one during their periods, and one in the period after giving birth, and the attitudes towards them couldn't be more different. The one is reasonably accepted as something of an acceptable minhag, with some rabbinic blessing, even though the origins are difficult, and it is clear it is solely women generated, while the other gets the full minhag taus, must be stamped out, treatment, at least amongst some. Even though on first glance they would seem to be directly parallel). While you, I thought given that you characterised what I called minhag garua as being minhag chasuv, understood minhag garua as being something done even by non-Jews that had halachic impact, which didn't seem to me to be what was being discussed in the gemora in Pesachim at any point, and hence not the subject of the Ri and Rosh's distinction there. -Micha Regards Chana From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 14:38:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 17:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: free public transport on Shabbos/Yomtov In-Reply-To: <004401d644dc$61126e20$23374a60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004401d644dc$61126e20$23374a60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200702213852.GD25994@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 08:20:35PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > There are a fair number of shops, but there are a fair number of houses too > (and some blocks of flats, definitely majority Jewish). We know people who > live in a couple of the houses right on Golders Green road... A balebatishe comment: It needn't be people right on the road, though. Bus lines are routed to serve neighborhoods. Even if it were a street entirely of shops and other commercial enterprises, a route would take into account any residential areas that are in easy walking distance to any stops. Which is certainly true of what I remember from Golder's Green Road. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless http://www.aishdas.org/asp he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. Author: Widen Your Tent Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 15:23:32 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:23:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 00:29 Zev Sero via Avodah, wrote: > On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking > > and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul > > shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking > > with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. > > Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. > The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the > food gets hot of its own accord. > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and metal heated by a magnetic field? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 15:45:36 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:45:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <20200702141404.GB25994@aishdas.org> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Simon Montagu Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 01:44 Subject: Re: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status To: Micha Berger On Thu, 2 Jul 2020, 17:14 Micha Berger, wrote: > > The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't > apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for > refu'ah beShabbos. > > Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the > gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their > motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking > via fir > Lo p'log is not a universal. There are plenty of cases where hazal and the pos'kim explore in which scenarios gezeirot are or are not relevant (as opposed to implementation details in what is essentially the same situation, such as pianos or violins on shabbat). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 15:58:34 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:58:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais haVaad] Police Protection: Are Officers Liable for Injuries They Inflict? Message-ID: <20200702225834.GA17037@aishdas.org> I think this topic has crossed all of our minds lately. >From https://www.baishavaad.org/police-protection-are-officers-liable-for-injuries-they-inflict/ Tir'u baTov! -Micha The Bais HaVaad Halacha Center Police Protection: Are Officers Liable for Injuries They Inflict? Adapted from the writings of Dayan Yitzhak Grossman July 2, 2020 On June 12, Atlanta Police Department officers Garrett Rolfe and Devin Brosnan were attempting to handcuff Rayshard Brooks and arrest him for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Brooks wrestled with the officers, seized Brosnan's Taser, and attempted to flee. With Rolfe pursuing him, Brooks turned and fired the Taser toward Rolfe. Rolfe then shot at Brooks three times, striking him twice in the back and killing him. Rolfe was subsequently charged with felony murder and ten other offenses. In considering Rolfe's possible culpability for killing Brooks, the first issue is whether the shooting was justified as self-defense. We do not consider here this specific question, but only the general question of the liability of a duly authorized agent of the state for the use of force resulting in injury or death. Agents of the court In the Mishnah, Abba Sha'ul rules that a father who strikes his son, a teacher who disciplines his student, and an agent of the court, who accidentally kill, are not subject to the law of exile (galus).[1] The Tosefta rules similarly with regard to civil liability for nonlethal injury: The father, the teacher, and the agent of the court are all exempt, unless the force used is "more than is appropriate," in which case they are liable.[2] An alternate formulation appears elsewhere in the Tosefta: The agent is exempt if he injures inadvertently (b'shogeg), but liable if he injures deliberately (b'meizid), "out of concern for tikun olam."[3] R' Shimon ben Tzemach Duran explains that these two formulations are equivalent: If the force used is "appropriate" but nevertheless results in injury, the agent is considered shogeg, but if it is "more than is appropriate," he is considered meizid. He also explains that the liability in the case of meizid is in accordance with the normal laws of torts, and the concern for tikun olam is the rationale for the exemption of shogeg, i.e., Chazal absolved a shogeg from liability despite the principle of adam muad l'olam, by which people are usually held liable for torts committed b'shogeg.[4] It would seem that according to this approach, "shogeg" here has its general meaning of an act that while inadvertent, nevertheless has an element of negligence to it, and so would engender liability were it not for the concern for tikun olam, since it would seem absurd for an agent of the court who carried out his duty entirely properly to be liable for its consequences (were it not for tikun olam), any more than the court itself and its agents would be liable as tortfeasors for the very imposition of punishment such as lashes or execution upon a miscreant![5] In apparent contradiction to the assumption of the Tosefta that an agent of the court is not authorized to use more force than necessary to carry out his duty stands a ruling of Rabbeinu Yerucham ben Meshulam, accepted by some poskim, that an agent of the court who strikes the body or damages the property of a recalcitrant person is exempt even if he was able to accomplish his goal by other means.[6] It seems that this opinion understands that the availability of nonviolent means does not automatically render the use of violence "more than is appropriate." Thus in Rabbeinu Yerucham's case, although alternative nonviolent means were available, once the agent chose to utilize violence, the level of force he used was the minimum necessary to accomplish his goal, whereas in the case of the Tosefta, the level of force utilized was gratuitously high. Alternatively, some contemporary writers consider it self-evident that Rabbeinu Yerucham concedes that the authorities have no right to use "excessive" and "unreasonable" force relative to the goal of preserving the rule of law.[7] Perhaps, then, when the Tosefta assigns liability where the force used was "more than is appropriate," it is referring to just such "excessive" and "unreasonable" force. In any event, other poskim disagree with Rabbeinu Yerucham's ruling and maintain that an agent of the court is only exempt from liability for the use of force if he had no other means to achieve his goal.[8] The exemption of an agent of the court only applies provided force was used in order to compel compliance with the court's directives, but not when motivated by anger.[9] Some contemporary writers assume that a police officer would have the same status as the "agent of the court" discussed by Chazal and would therefore be exempt from liability insofar as his use of force was appropriate. __________________________________________________________________ [1]Makkos 2:2. Cf. Rambam and Ra'avad Hilchos Rotzeiach Ushmiras Hanefesh 5:6, and Bnei V'lechem Yehudah, Bnei Shmuel, Gur Aryeh, Hamei'ir La'aretz, Kruv Mimshach, Ma'asei Rokeach, Mirkeves Hamishneh, Ein Tarshish, and Shufrei D'Yaakov ibid.; Shu"t Shevus Yaakov cheilek 3 siman 140; R. Yehuda Zoldan, Tzidkas Yehuda V'Yisrael, siman 6 os 1; R. Moshe Taragin, Shliach Bais Din Sheharag Beshogeg. One version of the Tosefta contains a position contrary to that of Abba Sha'ul; see Or Sameiach Hilchos Rotzeiach 5:6 and Tzidkas Yehuda V'Yisrael ibid. [2]Tosefta Bava Kama 9:3. [3]Ibid. Gittin 3:13. [4]Shu"t Tashbatz cheilek 3 siman 82. [5]This is certainly true according to the poskim that maintain that the principle of adam muad l'olam does not apply to oness gamur (see Tosafos Bava Kama 27b s.v. uShmuel amar; Shulchan Aruch C.M. 378:1-3 and Shach ibid. s.k. 1). [6]Sefer Maysharim Nesiv 31 cheilek 2 p. 92 second column, cited by Sema C.M. siman 8 s.k. 25 and Ba'er Heitev ibid. s.k. 8. [7]Adv. Yaakov Shapiro and Dr. Michael Vigoda, Shimush B'choach al Yedei Hamishtarah, n. 33. [8]Toras Chaim Bava Kama end of daf 28; Shevus Yaakov cheilek 1 siman 180, cited in Pis'chei Teshuvah ibid. s.k. 6; Sha'ar Mishpat ibid. s.k. 2; Aruch Hashulchan ibid. se'if 6; Yeshuos Yisrael ibid. Ein Mishpat s.k. 2 and Chukas Hamishpat s.k. 6. Erech Shai ibid. se'if 5 concludes that the matter is a s'feika d'dina. Cf. Halacha Pesukah ibid. p. 86 n. 214. [9]Shu"t Ra'anach (Yerushalayim 5720) siman 111 p. 475. Cf. Shevus Ya'akov cheilek 3 end of siman 140 and Shimush B'choach al Yedei Hamishtarah. From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 16:02:21 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:02:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200702230221.GA7250@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 01:23:32AM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: >> Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. >> The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the >> food gets hot of its own accord. > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and > metal heated by a magnetic field? I believe Zev is saying that the induction cooker doesn't cause any metal to glow. However, when you cook on an old-school electric stove, the coil will glow. And glowing is included in "eish". (I'm not sure about the last part. I think it would depend on whether causing a gachales shel mateches is bishul or havarah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. http://www.aishdas.org/asp Life is about creating yourself. Author: Widen Your Tent - George Bernard Shaw - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From zev at sero.name Thu Jul 2 17:03:56 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 20:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: On 2/7/20 6:23 pm, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > Glowing hot metal is included in "fire".? Here there is no fire at all. > The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the > food gets hot of its own accord. > > > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and > metal heated by a magnetic field? The pot or pan doesn't get nearly hot enough to qualify as fire. It doesn't have to, since it's heating the food directly, rather than heating a pot sitting on top of it, which will then heat the food it contains. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Thu Jul 2 17:02:12 2020 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 00:02:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Realities of Times Past (Was: Latecomers to shul on Friday night) Message-ID: R?Akiva Miller asks (38/54) a typically thoughtful question about adding Magen Avot on Friday night. The reasoning and realities are difficult to understand, he notes, and so he asks, ?There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better?? I don?t have any answers for him but I have similar questions about reasons given for other changes in halacha. For example, we don?t blow shofar on RH that falls on Shabbat (thus missing out on a Biblical commandment) because of three maybes: (a) maybe someone will be blowing who doesn?t know how to do do properly, (b) maybe that will happen on a Shabbat RH, and (c) maybe that person will carry the shofar in a reshut harabim to an expert for instruction. Well, how often would that occur? Was this common in those days? And if so, why? It?s not common today for shofar blowers to go to experts on RH to give them instruction. And equally difficult fir me to understand, wasn?t there some other way to prevent the triple maybe sin of carrying other than making all the Jewish people for generations on end miss out on a once a year biblical commandment.? Was society so different that this was really an otherwise unmanageable problem at the time the ruling was put into effect? To paraphrase Akiva, there?s something that I'm missing about the realities of that time; can anyone explain the reasoning better? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From marty.bluke at gmail.com Fri Jul 3 00:13:36 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 10:13:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop Message-ID: R? Simon Montagu asked: > That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a > Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for > the gezeira seem to apply.... This would seem to be a classic case of davar shebminyan tzorich minyan acher lhatiro which we don?t have. There are many gezeras that we observe today even though the reason behind the gezera no longer applies. For example, taking medicine on shabbos is prohibited because you may grind the ingredients. In today?s world of pills the reason no longer applies yet most poskim still prohibit taking pills for something like a headache. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:17:50 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 17:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200706211750.GA10250@aishdas.org> Someone pointed me to https://www.torahbase.org/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%A0%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D See section 6. R' Asher Weid isn't comfortable have a nakhri cook for you by microwave. Something I had thought was pretty commonly accepted. In this case, he allws, but only because the situation that required getting a housekeeper to cook is a she'as hadechaq, and because hiring a Jewish housekeeper would be a hotza'ah merubah. Only adding the lack of aish as a yeish le'ayein and is willing to use it as an additional "chazi le'itztarufei". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he http://www.aishdas.org/asp brought an offering. But to bring an offering, Author: Widen Your Tent you must know where to slaughter and what - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 01:31:54 2020 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:31:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Realities of Times Past (Was: Latecomers to shul on Friday night) Message-ID: Fellow Ovedim have (IIRC at the behest of RAM who asked the question) been wondering why Tefillat Me'eyn Sheva' is said on Friday evenings. RJK particularly cited RAM: > "The reasoning and realities are difficult to understand," he notes, " > and so," he asks: "There's something that I'm missing about the > realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they > davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain > the story better?" There may be a clue in an article by Jacob Mann. Jacob Mann was, as far as I can reconstruct, a Pzsworsker Chassid who loved Judaism and learning, but upon landing the USA possibly tragically aligned himself with the wrong crowd. But this is just a reconstruction. For all I know, him publishing a bunch of articles in the Reform"Hebrew Union College Annual" may have been because it was in his eyes the most widespread scholarly publication, one that would afford him the most exposure. Interestingly, he insisted on transliterating Hebrew into Ashkenazi pronunciation, and HUCA agreed. At any rate, he was a pretty interesting historian of liturgy and may have been on to certain things correctly. In an article entitled Changes in the Divine Service of the Synagogue due to Persecution, he brings evidence for several periods of anti Jewish persecutions in which certain prayers or practices were prohibited, giving rise to creative solutions. Though he does not deal with Me'eyn Sheva' (as far as I remember), the setting seems to work well. Perhaps Me'eyn Sheva came from a time when Jews had to pray outside the settlements, because they were praying in hiding, and thus had to watch out for each other's safety. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 03:59:50 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:59:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status Message-ID: Rav Hershel Schachter has a fascinating essay in his Sefer about when we say lo plug by gezeros and when not. It has been a while but I believe he says that gezeros are all lo plug except if the reason was written into the nusach of the gezera. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 13:16:24 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 16:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200707201624.GE25868@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 01:59:50PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Rav Hershel Schachter has a fascinating essay in his Sefer about when we > say lo plug by gezeros and when not. It has been a while but I believe he > says that gezeros are all lo plug except if the reason was written into the > nusach of the gezera. The problem is, that determination is often non-trivial to make. Where is the end-quote -- is the explanation part of the quote of the wording of the gezeira, or the gemara's explanation of its purpose stated and stated after the quote? We discussed this idea many years ago, when I proposed this was the root of the machloqes about basar kafui. Very related is that it is also sometimes unclear when something is a pesaq in existing law, and when a gezeira. If it's a pesaq, then applicability is built in whether or not it's stated. Pesaqim only hold if the situation is materially the same. What the gemara says about putting out a burning house on Shabbos wouldn't apply to a wood-frame house in an urban or most suburban settings because the risk to life is simply different. Like the Peri Chadash vs the Chasam Sofer about chalav yisrael; the PC says CY is a pesaq, so he has little problem saying that CY is moot when there is other disincentive to adulterating the milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness http://www.aishdas.org/asp which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost Author: Widen Your Tent again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Jul 7 14:44:42 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 21:44:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Risk Reward Message-ID: <1594171681704.0f3bd39e3250de82@aishdas.org> A note I wrote To a pulpit rabbi: I strongly support a recent discussion concerning return to synagogue. I do have to say that there's one point that I deeply disagree on. Maybe it's a matter of nuance that cannot be communicated in trying times to the general public. I don't believe that flattening the curve has no halachic import. In fact as a community we are always making this kind of trade off. If not why wouldn't we spend every dollar we have on improving public health. The answer per R' Schachter and R' Weiss is that's the way the world operates. Bottom line risk reward tradeoffs are often very difficult. Personally I'd prefer we be more open and honest about them and have public discussion but realize that may not be practical So what is the halachic philosophy of risk/reward? perhaps a starting point The cohain gadol and the alternates for himself or wife on Yom Kippur? Kt Joel Rich From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 19:15:59 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 22:15:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Francis Collins on Science and Religion Message-ID: <20200708021559.GA27334@aishdas.org> An interview with Dr. Francis Collins (an Obama appointee now most famous for being Dr. Anthony Fauci's boss). https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/anthony-faucis-boss-on-why-things-could-be-much-better-soon.html Three snippets that are on topic for our group, but there is more discussion of G-d there than this: "I was an atheist when I entered medical school. I was a Christian when I left and it was much driven by this experience of trying to integrate the reductionist aspects of science into the much more fundamental issues I saw my patients wrestling with, like is there a God and does God care about me and what happens after I die? "Those are uncomfortable questions for an atheist 23-year-old, but ultimately they became totally compelling and required some investigation and some answers. Ultimately, out of that, it came to me that it makes a lot more sense to believe in God than to deny God's existence. A scientist isn't supposed to make assertions that you would call universal negatives, because you can never have enough evidence to do that, and yet that's what atheism calls you to do. ... "Similarly, the way that some people have caricatured science as a threat to God, that doesn't resemble the science that I'm doing. It's been a terrible, I think, consequence of our last century or so that this polarization has been accepted as inevitable when I see it not at all in that light. There are many interesting scientific questions that tap into the kind of area that you're asking about, like what is the neuroscientific basis of consciousness? What is the neuroscientific basis of a spiritual experience? If there is such a neuroscientific basis, does that make this spiritual experience less meaningful or more so? Those are fun conversations to have." "... What is our future? I don't want to see a future where this science-versus-faith conflict leads to a winner and a loser. If science wins and faith loses, we end up with a purely technological society that has lost its moorings and foundation for morality. I think that could be a very harsh and potentially violent outcome. But I don't want to see a society either where the argument that science is not to be trusted because it doesn't agree with somebody's interpretation of a Bible verse wins out. That forces us back into a circumstance where many of the gifts that God has given us through intellectual curiosity and the tools of science have to be put away. "So I want to see a society that flourishes by bringing these worldviews together by being careful about which worldview is most likely to give you the truth, depending on the question you're asking." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole http://www.aishdas.org/asp heart, your entire soul, and all you own." Author: Widen Your Tent Love is not two who look at each other, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:30:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714183052.GC21268@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:40:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate > dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), > as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will > be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised > (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- > r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? I'm uncomfortable with your formulation, but I think I agree with your point. As microelectronics become more embedded in society, it's harder to consider their use uvda dechol. So pesaqim ought change. In RMF's case.... What changed over time was not whether a given fact was uvda dechol. He assumed that use of a timer would pose mar'is ayin issues, and that metzi'us changed. A close parallel, but not exactly the same. And yes, it could well be the tzibbur who make that point known to the posqim. (Especially today, when the gedolim we look to for pesaq often are men who never left yeshiva life. As opposed to the previous generations when we looked to the town's rav for pesaqim.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward http://www.aishdas.org/asp by patting yourself on the back. Author: Widen Your Tent -Anonymous - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:30:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714183052.GC21268@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:40:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate > dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), > as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will > be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised > (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- > r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? I'm uncomfortable with your formulation, but I think I agree with your point. As microelectronics become more embedded in society, it's harder to consider their use uvda dechol. So pesaqim ought change. In RMF's case.... What changed over time was not whether a given fact was uvda dechol. He assumed that use of a timer would pose mar'is ayin issues, and that metzi'us changed. A close parallel, but not exactly the same. And yes, it could well be the tzibbur who make that point known to the posqim. (Especially today, when the gedolim we look to for pesaq often are men who never left yeshiva life. As opposed to the previous generations when we looked to the town's rav for pesaqim.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward http://www.aishdas.org/asp by patting yourself on the back. Author: Widen Your Tent -Anonymous - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:21:12 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Yehareig velo ya'avor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I posted on this issue here and on another list: >> If a Ben Noach [Noahide, i.e. non-Jew] is being forced to abrogate >> one of his 7 mitzvot... > I received this [from Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter]: >> If you accept the authority of Rambam, this is black-letter law. See Sefer >> Shoftim, Hilkhoth Mlakhim UMilxmotheyhem, Chapter 10, Paragraph 2: "A Ben-Noax >> who is compelled to violate one of his commandments is allowed to do so > Thanks for the cite! If you check out the mishneh lmelech there For those who didn't look, it's at: https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rtype=%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98&mfid=104611&rid=15005 > he refers > to the parshat drachim derech atarim (drasha #2) who makes exactly the > argument I proposed as why a ben noach would be required to give up his > life rather than kill someone. But also says "debishfichus damim mitzvah haben-noach sheyeihareig ve'al ya'avor". By making it about "mai chazis" it isn't about the 7 mitzvos in general, or even the other two mitzvos that for Jews are yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Rather, because the only question is who dies, not the comparative values are life vs obedience. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation http://www.aishdas.org/asp -- just think of an incurable disease such as Author: Widen Your Tent inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:25:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:25:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:38:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger wrote: >> But in general, there is an increasing reluctance to pasqen in >> some circles. Whether Brisker chumeros or the MB's advice to >> either play safe in some places or avoid the question in another. >> So, we're seeing more and more of it. > I spent a couple of minutes trying to think of examples of this phenomenon, > and I ended up agreeing that this *seems* to be more common in hilchos > brachos... > However, in most other areas of halacha, it's not a choice of this or that. > It's a question of issur and heter. (Or of chiyuv and not.) In such cases, > "avoiding the situation" tends to be synonymous with "being machmir".... I would agree for the "defy the question" pesaqim being more common in hilkhos berakhos. But I don't see Brisker chumeros or baal nefesh yachmir being more of a berakhah thing. Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of safeiq would be lehaqeil. My largely implied question was how to save this reluctance to pasqen from accusations of lack of faith in the entire concept of pesaq and deciding halakhah. Nu, so for the Briskers, I takeh think they don't believe that a pesaq settles the din anymore. As the Rambam put it, Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah. But for the CC and the rest of us? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; http://www.aishdas.org/asp Experience comes from bad decisions. Author: Widen Your Tent - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From zev at sero.name Tue Jul 14 12:29:37 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Yehareig velo ya'avor In-Reply-To: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> References: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <27345b4a-f329-cfd4-8b0f-8b8be1147f72@sero.name> >> Thanks for the cite! If you check out the mishneh lmelech there > > For those who didn't look, it's at: > https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rtype=%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98&mfid=104611&rid=15005 > >> he refers >> to the parshat drachim derech atarim (drasha #2) who makes exactly the >> argument I proposed as why a ben noach would be required to give up his >> life rather than kill someone. > > But also says "debishfichus damim mitzvah haben-noach sheyeihareig ve'al > ya'avor". By making it about "mai chazis" it isn't about the 7 mitzvos > in general, or even the other two mitzvos that for Jews are yeihareig > ve'al ya'avor. Rather, because the only question is who dies, not the > comparative values are life vs obedience. Thank you. However if the Rambam agreed with this it's odd that he didn't say so. And the svara against it seems fairly simple: Yisrael are commanded in kiddush haShem; we're expected to sometimes put obedience ahead of our lives. Therefore when considering for which mitzvos we must do so, the svara of "mai chazis" compels us to include this. It wouldn't make sense to say that for AZ we must be moser nefesh, but for shfichas damim we needn't. But for Bnei Noach the whole concept of mesirus nefesh doesn't exist. They are never expected to do that; we have an explicit pasuk that they're even allowed to serve AZ rather than die. So how can we tell them to sacrifice themselves for mai chazis? On the contrary, they will tell you exactly mai chazina -- this is my life and that is his. To *me* my life is more important than his, just as I expect that to *him* his life is more important than mine. Just as I would give my life to save my children, because theirs are more important to me than mine, so I will give your life to save mine, because mine is more important to me than yours. It's only once the principle that there is something higher than survival is established that we can extend it with mai chazis. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Tue Jul 14 12:55:07 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:55:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <722273ba-58af-d192-57ea-032a8f9cd3e5@sero.name> On 14/7/20 2:25 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Nu, so for the Briskers, I takeh think they don't believe that a pesaq > settles the din anymore. As the Rambam put it, Rav Ashi veRavina sof > hora'ah. Or, they believe in psak in principle, but not in their own ability to pasken, and they're not too sure about your ability either, or his or his or his. But I think there's also a good helping of the gemara's statement that a baal nefesh doesn't eat meat on which a psak was required; as the proverb goes, "a shayla macht treif". Only if the heter is found explicitly in the sources, so that no reasoning was needed can one eat the meat without any qualms. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 03:25:38 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 06:25:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue Message-ID: . R" Micha Berger wrote: > Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't > which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because > there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of > safeiq would be lehaqeil. Safeiq "rather than" pesaq?? Can the two be differentiated? Isn't psak *based* on safek, trying to figure out where Truth resides? > My largely implied question was how to save this reluctance to > pasqen from accusations of lack of faith in the entire concept > of pesaq and deciding halakhah. As I see it, it's not that we have a lack of *faith* in psak, but that we're so confused about how it works. And especially, how it works nowadays when there's no Sanhedrin. To me, the classic case in bitul is bitul b'rov. Does the minority really lose its identity to the point that all pieces can be eaten by a single person at one time? Or is it only a procedural psak, such that we are fearful for each item, and they must be shared among several people, or eaten by one person at different times, etc etc. And it carries through to psak too. Can I really ignore the minority opinion? Without a Sanhedrin to actually discuss and vote, how can I be sure that the other camp is wrong? And so, just as we "avoided the issue" by having several people share the probably-kosher items, we also "avoid the issue" in psak by finding a situation where we don't choose between the several opinions. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 15 02:48:25 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:48:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] action or results? Message-ID: There are four identical quadruplets brothers, Robert, Simon, Larry and Judah. Robert , Larry and Simon are all asymptomatic carriers of the corona virus but Judah is not. The local law and rabbinic authorities require wearing a mask when going out in public but none of them do. The four brothers are not clearly identifiable, when seen, as orthodox Jews but are so known by the public. They all go outside to identical public events where their identities are not known. Robert infects a number of people but he's never identified as the source of the infection. Larry infects a number of people and is identified as a source of infection in the media. Judah never infects anybody and neither does Simon. What shows up on each brothers' permanent record card in shamayim? Is it multidimensional? 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 JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 15 02:50:41 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? 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 zev at sero.name Wed Jul 15 07:03:18 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5622a8f8-7434-2f3e-086c-d0052a01ff28@sero.name> On 15/7/20 5:50 am, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required to > give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol > worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching > theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and > not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? I don't believe there is. These three are not worse than other sins. E.g. murder is only an issur hereg, and is therefore *less* severe than any issur skila and sreifa. So the term "Big 3" is a misnomer; they're in the category for being big. And they didn't all get in to the category in the same way. Avoda Zara comes from the pasuk "venikdashti". Murder comes in from the svara of "mai chazis". And all the arayos come in because of the pasuk that compares eshes ish to murder, so they are included in the "mai chazis" even though that svara doesn't apply to them! Which is very strange. Then there are other mitzvos that also *obviously* override pikuach nefesh, so obviously that they don't need to be listed, such as milchemes mitzvah. (For that matter, since one is required to go even to a milchemes hareshus if the king conscripts one, that too must override pikuach nefesh. And obviously war overrides venishmartem.) Bris also involves a certain level of risk, and historically it was just accepted that a certain number of babies will die from it, and that we have to accept this. So to that extent it also overrides pikuach nefesh, until the risk rises high enough to change that. Losing one child obviously increases the probability of there being a genetic defect in the family, and yet it is not enough to cancel future brissen in that family. Only a second loss does that. Then we have a pasuk that earning a living justifies taking certain risks with ones life; while I wouldn't call this overriding pikuach nefesh or venishmartem, it obviously puts a limit on those principles that many people don't consciously acknowledge. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 15:13:54 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200715221354.GF8072@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:50:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required > to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol > worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching > theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and > not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? One is the greatest violation of Torah, one of Avodah, and one of Gemilus Chassadim. AZ as the inverse of Avodah and Murder as the inverse of Gema"ch shouldn't need elaboration. As for arayos... In the Maharal's commentary on that mishnah, he describes the three amudei olam as a relationship with one's soul, with G-d and with other people. Torah perfects the relatiosionship with oneself. Whereas someone who pursues arayos turns that self into a menuval. Torah is about perfection of the mind, middos and the rest of the soul. Arayos is about giving up on all that and just answering to the body. Living cannot be at the expense of an axe to a pillar one's life stands on. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of http://www.aishdas.org/asp greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, Author: Widen Your Tent in fact, of our modesty. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 05:42:49 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 08:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required > to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of > idol worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one > overarching theme that links these three transgressions that explains > why these and not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? If there's an overarching theme, I haven't found it yet. I have tried to find the reason for each of these three, what makes them different than the other 610, and I've come up with very different answers for each of them. If I'm not mistaken, murder is the only one for which the Gemara gives an explicit reason. If my life is at stake, and the only solution is at the cost of someone else's life, who's to say that my blood is redder? Simple math. Or simple logic, your choice. Next is avodah zara. I came up with this answer myself, so I eagerly welcome any comments about it. My logic is like this: An inventive mind can come up with all sorts of justifications for violating mitzvos in extreme circumstances. "Violate this Shabbos so he will keep many other Shabbosos," for example. Eliyahu built a bamah on Har Carmel, because he knew it would lead to Kiddush Hashem. But Avoda Zara is the sort of thing where - by definition - the means NEVER justify the ends. There is NO situation in which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be Kiddush Hashem. It's a contradiction in terms. Even the opportunity to do mitzvos for the rest of my life can't justify an actual Avodah Zara today. (I'm not talking about where someone merely pretends to do Avodah Zara; that's a more complicated topic and might be justified by some poskim in some cases.) But to actually do real Avodah Zara is treason against Hashem and never allowed. That leaves Arayos. This is a very strange halacha, especially to the general culture arounds us, which accepts these acts (when done by consenting adults) as victimless pleasures, not capital crimes. Non-logical chukim. So why is it that we must avoid these acts, even at the cost of our lives? Doesn't make sense. The tentative answer I've come up with is that this halacha is meant to help insure solid family life. Society around us is falling apart, and many people think that one of the causes is that too many children grow up without strong family values. It is merely my guess, but I can't help but suspect that this is why Hashem made Arayos so very very assur, to impress this value upon us. Even if (lo aleinu) a situation actually arises, and a person is tempted to rationalize that he can do this aveirah today and live to do mitzvos tomorrow, it is still not worth it. That's the message of the severity of this halacha. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hanktopas at gmail.com Sun Jul 19 06:59:31 2020 From: hanktopas at gmail.com (Henry Topas) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 09:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: Recently, I have heard of some shuls beginning Shabbat morning davening at Nishmat or even at Shochayn Ad. This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the same Sha'tz conclude what he started? Kol tuv, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 00:59:57 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:59:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan Message-ID: Just catching up and the message from R' Joel Rich on Sun, 24 May 2020 caught my eye. RJJ wrote: > In the case of the woman putting on a tallis without tzitzis- there > was no real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis > - ie fulfil the mitzvah (except her rabbi told her not to), so why > would you be satisfied with second best. I'm not so sure about the "no real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis" part. In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar could cause carrying in a public domain. Along those lines one could argue that a tallis may also cause one to carry in the public domain if not tied properly, or strings break off, etc. Just a thought, - Danny From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Jul 20 07:02:26 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:02:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when > we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed > by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as > the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the > same Sha'tz conclude what he started? See S"A O"C 53:3 (Shatz vs. tzibbur) https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Orach_Chayim.53.3 She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, Joel Rich From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 11:26:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:59:57AM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: > In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. > > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. ... In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! So, I'm not sure why the HM needs to invoke the risk of an aveirah. Lo zakhisi lehavin. And more to our point, the lack of berakhah doesn't seem to me to prove the mitzvah itself should be avoided because it means some risk exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but the lighting of a fire. Author: Widen Your Tent - W.B. Yeats - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From cbkaufman at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 13:58:38 2020 From: cbkaufman at gmail.com (Brent Kaufman) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:58:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 (4) Message-ID: There are actually 4 big ones that one must voluntarily give one's life rather than transgress. A person is obligated to die rather than transgress any mitzvah in the Torah if one is being forced to do so publicly during a time of shmad. The Rambam lists this, but I didn't check before writing this, for its exact reference. chaimbaruch kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 19:12:11 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 22:12:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: . I wrote: > But Avoda Zara is the sort of thing where - by definition - > the means NEVER justify the ends. There is NO situation in > which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be Kiddush > Hashem. It's a contradiction in terms. I made a typing error there. What I had intended to write was: "There is NO situation in which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be *L'Shem Shamayim*. It's a contradiction in terms." It's not difficult to imagine situations (or cite historical incidents) where someone might do an aveirah L'Shem Shamayim. But that's for the other 612. It seems to me categorically impossible for someone to do actual Avoda Zara (as opposed to merely going through the motions, which is also assur, but *possibly* not yehareg v'al yaavor) for L'Shem Shamayim reasons. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 05:41:45 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:41:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: > This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when > we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed > by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as > the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the > same Sha'tz conclude what he started? I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. E.g.: We learned in a Mishna in Brachos that if the Shat"z cannot continue, a substitute continues where he left off. More common: Aveilim often switch Shat"z at Ashrei - the 2nd one saying Kadish Tiskabal (may our prayers be accepted) even though the first one said the actual Amida that this is going on. In your case, both congregants will be saying both opening and closing Brachot - so I'm not even sure what you're asking. Kol Tuv - Danny From doniels at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 05:34:42 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:34:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> References: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB commented on my thought: > In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos > that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To > the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem > in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! That's THIS VERY Rambam. > So, I'm not sure why the HM needs to invoke the risk of an aveirah. Lo > zakhisi lehavin. > > And more to our point, the lack of berakhah doesn't seem to me to prove > the mitzvah itself should be avoided because it means some risk exists. My mistake for getting you mixed up. The HM isn't commenting on Tzitzis - that part is my "chiddush"... that there's a "good reason" why women didn't wear Tzitzis over the generations. The HM was commenting IIUC why the Rambam talks about women wearing Tzitzis but not Tefillin. I can't find the HM on Sefria, or I'd link to it. Kol Tuv - Danny From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Tue Jul 21 12:08:22 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:08:22 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan Message-ID: <000001d65f92$4e243cf0$ea6cb6d0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:59:57AM +0300 RDS wrote: > In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. > > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. And then RMB responded: <> We need to back up here. There is a fundamental machlokus in the gemora between Rabbi Yehuda (supported by Rabbi Meir), and Rabbi Yossi (supported by Rabbi Shimon) as to whether women are permitted to perform mitzvos aseh she hzman grama - from which they are exempt. Rabbi Yossi says "reshus" - ie they are allowed. Rabbi Yehuda says no, it is assur for women to perform mitzvos asseh shehazman grama. And there are two explanations given for Rabbi Yehuda forbidding women performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. The first (eg by Rashi) is of Bal Tosif. That is, if the Torah says women are exempt from performing certain mitzvos, then for them to go ahead and perform them would violate the principle of bal tosif. However, most rishonim argue that bal tosif does not make sense here, and therefore most rishonim, including those who posken like Rabbi Yehuda, do so not under the principle of bal tosif, but under a principle that can be called "halachic counter-pressure". That is, even Rabbi Yehuda did not forbid all women from doing acts that constitute mitzvos (such as sitting in a sukkah on Sukkos, which, if you follow the bal tosif principle would be ossur for a women to do), but only where there are halachic counter-pressures, and the Haagahos Maimoniyos is quoting some of the halachic counter-pressures that the rishonim discuss. As we all know, we posken (both Sephardim (via the Shulchan Aruch) and Ashkenazim (via the Rema)), like Rabbi Yossi, that women *may* perform mitzvos aseh shehazman grama, and this Rambam is one of the bases for the way the Shulchan Aruch poskens. However: a) there are a significant number of rishonim who posken like Rabbi Yehuda; and b)even within Rabbi Yossi, there are those who say that Rabbi Yossi only permits where the halachic counter-pressure is something less than a Torah prohibition. If, like the Rambam, you holds that saying a bracha sheino tzricha is a Torah violation, and you hold according to this view in Rabbi Yossi, you end up with the Rambam's position. If you follow Tosfos (Ri and Rabbanu Tam), who holds that saying a bracha sheino tzricha is merely a rabbinic prohibition, then following Rabbi Yossi t would be pushed aside in the circumstance of a woman performing a mitzvah that is a reshus. So holds the Rema. For various talks I have given on this, I have drawn up the following diagrams - I don't know if they will come out in the digest form, but I think people find them useful to understand some of the complexity. [RMB, is there some way of embedding these in the digest?] If you don't get them, I am happy to email them separately. Bottom line there are a lot of rishonim who did not hold like Rabbi Yossi, and this is reflected in, inter alia, the discussion regarding tzitzis. Because while the Tur, following his father the Rosh and the Rabbanu Tam/Ran happily permit women to make blessings over shofar and lulav, he says in Tur Orech Chaim Hilchot Tzitzit siman 17 ".And the Rambam writes that they may wrap without a blessing, and he is going in his position that explains that women are not able to bless on something from which they are exempt but Rabbanu Tam writes that they are able to bless even though they are exempt and it is better that they do not bless ..". And the Bach, picking up on this seeming contradiction says (Bach Orech Chaim Siman 17) On "And it is better that they do not bless"; There is to ask from that which he writes in siman 589 in connection with shofar that even though women are exempt they are able to blow and to bless and one should not protest. And it seems to me that it seems from here that in connection with tzitzis that it is not the custom for women to wear, and to bless, if so if a woman comes to ask ab initio if it is permitted to dress in tzitzis and to bless he should say to her that she should not bless because it is better that they should not bless given the disagreement of our rabbis but with shofar where they are already accustomed to blow and to bless they do not protest since they have on whom to rely but if they come to ask ab initio also with shofar you should say to them that they should not bless and we should rely on what was written here regarding tzitzis and this is the law [also] regarding shofar." But, it seems to me, to understand this portion, it is necessary to fully understand the depth of rishonic opposition to women performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. The Hagahios Maymoniyos was one of a number of Ashkenazi rishonim who disagreed with Rabbanu Tam/Ri/Ran and held one should posken like Rabbi Yehuda. Regards Chana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 19942 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.png Type: image/png Size: 21255 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.png Type: image/png Size: 20358 bytes Desc: not available URL: From simon.montagu at mail.gmail.com Tue Jul 21 03:40:33 2020 From: simon.montagu at mail.gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:40:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:59 PM Danny Schoemann wrote: > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. What mitzva couldn't potentially cause an aveira, including ones which women do aliba dekhulei alma? Bad timing in candle-lighting could cause hillul shabbat. On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 9:34 PM Micha Berger wrote: > In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos > that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To > the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem > in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! As I may have noted before, the general trend among Sepharadi aharonim is to follow RT against the SA and Rambam, and say that women at least can, and IIIRC davka _should_ make berachot on these mitzvot. ROY, kedarko bakodesh, insists on following Maran. From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 22 02:56:47 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:56:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?God=92s_existence?= Message-ID: Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all. I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience. It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place I?m not sure that came out as clearly as I might?ve liked but I hope you get the general idea. Thoughts? She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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 bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 22 12:57:46 2020 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:57:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A couple of points relevant to the 'big 3'. Firstly, as has been noted, they are not the only situations of yeihareig v'al yaavor. In addition to the situation of sha'as ha'shmad, the yerushalmi notes that mitzvos bein adam l'chaveiro are also YVAY. Like theft. And I believe we pasken that way. BUT that's not to diminish their uniqueness as YVAY mitzvos. They are mentioned in targum yonasan as a discrete set of YVAY mitzvos, I noticed in the last couple of weeks while doing chad targum. Although I couldn't find it again when I looked. That does mean the derivation in the Bavli is way after the din was already known, by a few hundred years at the least. And points to a much more them being a much more fundamental set of 3 with an early origin in halacha. In response to RZS's point about there being no obvious connection between them, that may well be exactly because they represent the extremes of three different branches of avoda, per the Maharal, and their only connection being that they are all archetypes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 23 08:21:33 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:21:33 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: <002001d66104$f2fb7ea0$d8f27be0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RAM wrote: In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this is the one I want to ask about.) > The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation of > Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana (danger). > Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the Mishnah, shuls > were located outside of the cities where it was not safe to be alone > at night. The Rabbis were concerned that people who came late to shul > might be left alone while finishing to daven. To give latecomers a > chance to catch up and finish davening with everyone else, Chazal > extended the davening by adding Mei'ein Sheva. <> And RAF suggested: <> However it seems to me that this does not answer RAM's question, as the point RAM makes is that Me'en Sheva is a very short additional prayer, and doesn't seem to make much difference one way or the other. Can I make a different suggestion (but again only a suggestion). I have been looking at something called Teshuvat HaGeonim HaChadashot, which, according to Bar Ilan (which is where I sourced it) was published by Simcha Emanuel in Jerusalem, 1995, from a manuscript in the Baron Gunzberg library includes previously unpublished geonic responsa, as well as the writings of early proven?al scholars. In it, in a discussion on the nature of kaddish found at siman 35, the presumably Gaonic author explains the locations of all the kaddishim and after explaining where they are in relation to Shachrit and Mincha (and why) he says ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? +?' ????? ??, ?+ ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? [???] ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??[?]? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????. " And after the blessings of reciting the shema of arvit because the prayer of arvit is reshut [Brachot 27b] and perhaps a person will go out from the synagogue after they finish the blessings of emet v?emunah and will not pray there with ten, and it will be that he will go out without kaddish." That is, there was a genuine concern that because arvit was reshut, people might come to say shema together, and then leave, hence the kaddish after shema and before shmonei esrei of arvit. Now, if that was a genuine concern, then maybe that also explains me'in sheva (especially if you understand me'in sheva as requiring, or at least being ideally, said with the community as a whole). Maybe the point is that a latecomer, given that arvit is reshut, was likely simply to say shema and its blessings and not bother to say shmone esrei at all but simply walk out. However with the incentive of saying me'in sheva together with the rest of the congregation, and with other people prepared to wait for him so that the me'en sheva would be communal, he would actually daven shmonei esrei in the presence of the minyan, so that he could then say me'en sheva with it. >Akiva Miller Kind regards Chana From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 23 09:34:09 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:34:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: <003001d6610f$17ad5ed0$47081c70$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: <> I should have pointed out that this particular teshuva was signed by Rav Avraham ben Rav Yitzchak - and given that he references "a few Geonim" and "other Geonim", later in the piece, it is more likely to be someone like Abraham ben Isaac de Narbonne (1110-1179), so more of a Rishon than a Gaon, despite the name of the compilation. Kind regards Chana From wolberg at yebo.co.za Sun Jul 26 09:36:50 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 18:36:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan 32:76 Message-ID: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> [AhS Yomi for yesterday covered OC 32:73-79. https://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi -mi] Loved the line: ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? -- ??? ??? ????? ???? ???. [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." -mi] Any comment on it? From zev at sero.name Sun Jul 26 16:10:19 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:10:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan 32:76 In-Reply-To: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> References: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> Message-ID: <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> On 26/7/20 12:36 pm, wolberg--- via Avodah wrote: > [AhS Yomi for yesterday covered OC 32:73-79. https://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi > -mi] > > Loved the line: ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? -- ??? ??? ????? ???? ???. > [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- > ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. > > [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts > about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." > -mi] > > Any comment on it? I think "yeseros" here means "superfluous", rather than merely "additional". Of course that begs the question, but I think that in general it's a statement of principle, not a rule for practice, though in this instance the AhS gives his opinion on what is superfluous. (I'd also translate "ein daas chachomim nocha meihem" less literally, as "Torah authorities do not approve of them", or even, riskily, "Daas Torah does not approve of them".) -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:50:00 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daas Chachamim Noachah Heimenu In-Reply-To: <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> References: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200727105000.GA9656@aishdas.org> In translating a Hebrew quote posted to the list, I wrote: >> [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- >> ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. >> >> [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts >> about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." >> -mi] On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 07:10:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > (I'd also translate "ein daas chachomim nocha meihem" less literally, as > "Torah authorities do not approve of them", or even, riskily, "Daas Torah > does not approve of them".) I was always taught something along the lines of your first version. I think it was R Yaakov Haber that I heard this from, but the idiom could equally have been intended to me something more like (loosely) "... isn't thinking with daas Torah". I found the argument compelling enough to try to offer both translations. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From driceman at optimum.net Mon Jul 27 07:36:27 2020 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?God=E2=80=99s_existence?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> RJR: > > Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all. > I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah > We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience. > > It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al > > In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place I haven?t read RAL?s essay (link?), but doesn?t RYhL use this idea at the beginning of the Kuzari, a generation before the Rambam? David Riceman From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Jul 27 09:04:15 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:04:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?God=E2=80=99s_existence?= In-Reply-To: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> References: , <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> Message-ID: <1E4BB098-3996-4C02-9BE1-6CA8B3672151@Segalco.com> I haven?t read RAL?s essay (link?), https://www.etzion.org.il/en/source-faith-faith-itself 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:14:27 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:14:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727201427.GC12492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 06:25:38AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R" Micha Berger wrote: >> Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't >> which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because >> there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of >> safeiq would be lehaqeil. > Safeiq "rather than" pesaq?? Can the two be differentiated? Isn't psak > *based* on safek, trying to figure out where Truth resides? Not safeiq rather than pesaq, "rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq". More reliance on safeiq deOraisa lehachmir, safeiq derabbanan lequlah -- unless efshar levareir / it's easy enough to be machmir. Of course, a baal nefesh may have a different definition of "easy enough". As opposed to looking to which shitah is stated by the gadol bekhochmah uveminyan (minyan rabbanim, rav with bigger following [looking at the Rambam or the Rosh...]), the logic of the sevara behind each possible pesaq, looking to see which pesaq was apparently accepted for how long and how broadly, hefsed meruba, kavod haberios... You know, the rules of pesaq. These latter kind of rules tend to be invoked less often than in the past. I think it comes from the Gra's position on the comparative unreality of pesaq after Rav Ashi and Ravina, taking the Rambam's "sof hora'ah" quite literally. Picked up by the Soloveitchiks, and with the popularity of Brisk among those who pasqen today... Add to that the whole concept of lomdus. Whether Brisker or other derakhim. When you value sevara much more than the other factors posqim have to balance, and you learn how to explain the sevara of all sides of a machloqes... There are fewer times the remaining rules of pesaq rise to the level of giving a clear answer. My latter two paragraphs feed into: > As I see it, it's not that we have a lack of *faith* in psak, but that > we're so confused about how it works. And especially, how it works nowadays > when there's no Sanhedrin. But we seem to disagree mostly on description rather than content: > And it carries through to psak too. Can I really ignore the minority > opinion? Without a Sanhedrin to actually discuss and vote, how can I be > sure that the other camp is wrong? ... "How can I be sure" IS a lack of faith in our ability to pasqen, as I would use the terms. Maybe the insecurity comes from a lack of surity we know how to do it right. I would still call it a lack of faith. If you don't think pesaq can be done the way the Rif, the Rambam, the Tur, the SA, the Levush, etc... did, that their precedent doesn't tell you how to decide which of the eilu va'eilu should become halakhah lemaaseh, that lack of faith in how to do pesaq has scary implications. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:19:21 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:19:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] action or results? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727201921.GD12492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:48:25AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > There are four identical quadruplets brothers, Robert, Simon, Larry and > Judah. Robert , Larry and Simon are all asymptomatic carriers of the > corona virus but Judah is not... > They all go outside to identical public events where their identities are > not known. Robert infects... > What shows up on each brothers' permanent record card in shamayim? Is > it multidimensional? Rachmana liba ba'i. Their records show each one's lack of concern for other's safety. Consequences, if they are correlated at all and some other aspect of hashgachah doesn't overwhelm this rule, megalgelim chov al yedei chayav. Which implies that who gets whom sick would at most be *indicative* of guilt for this or other deeds, not the actual thing he is guilty of. A person isn't judged for the results of their actions, or even for their actions themselves. (So, I'm denying both sides of the question in the subject line.) A person is judged "ba'asher hu sham" -- what kind of changes those decisions and actions made in themselves. I would take it for granted it's multidimensional. The person's "permanent record card" is their own soul. And the effects of their actions can improve one thing about the soul while damaging something else about it. A comparatively easy example is tact. a person can make a person that makes them more truthful, but gains that Emes at the expense of their drive for Shalom. And even without the previous paragraphs, Hashem isn't a Vatra -- the person will get the Tov that a more Emesdik soul has a beis qibbul for, and get less of the Tov that comes with losing some passion for Shalom. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:00:57 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727210057.GF12492@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: >> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when >> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed >> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as >> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the >> same Sha'tz conclude what he started? > I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. I called it an office, not the occupent. But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same idea. I have a theory why: I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a *shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:54:22 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:54:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] God's existence In-Reply-To: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> References: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20200727205422.GE12492@aishdas.org> RDR mentioned the Kuzari before I found the time to reply. I think what changed was in the discipline of philosophy. In the days of the rishonim, Philosophy was itself a kind of religion. Look at the opening paragraphs of ch. 1 of the Kuzari -- the king's survey includes a Philosopher (1:1), a Muslim, a Christian, and then the chaver. A Jewish Philosopher was a Scholasticist. Such that Rihal, even though the Kuzari is a book of philosophy as we now use the term, saw himself as anti-Philosophy. Then came the scientific method and people realizing the power and limitations of testing things empirically. The tensions between the Empiricists, who trusted these methods, and the Idealists, who wanted all knowledge to be as sound as Math, coming from self-evident postulates. And then the Kantian Revolution through to Existentialism and now Post-Modernism, etc... Philosophy less based on a confidence of being able to prove what's out there and more focused on describing the world as experienced. I argued here a few years back that this is what drove the popularity of universal hashgachah peratis. It's less a break from how rishonim understood HP than looking at a different topic. To the rishonim, a discussion of HP is all about its contrast to nature, randomness, bechirah chofshi, etc... Nowadays, the discussion of HP is about what it is we have bitachon in, how much hishatadlus do we need to invest given that what happens is decided by hashgachah... R Yehudah haLevi had a lack of faith in the idea that we can decisively prove that's really out there. That's for Greeks, who lack the more sure source of data -- mesorah. (1:13, 1:63) That mesorah part isn't very Modern in terms of the discipline of philosophy, but not believing we can ever really prove anything... Well, take this quote from 1:13: "Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved." Sounds downright Post-Modern! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Jul 28 19:19:28 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 22:19:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why did Chazal cancel shiva bc of Yom tov Message-ID: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> Many have recently written how they have missed the full traditional comforting process of shiva due to corona restrictions. That has reawakened in me the question of why did Chazal cancel shiva because of Yom tov? If the catharsis and process of shiva is so comforting and desirable for mourners, why did they take that away because of YT and not simply postpone till after YT. It's hard to say that after YT the shiva experience w be no longer necessary or needed. I saw someone suggest that "The souls of those who passed away now with abbreviated burials and shivas were so pure they ascended directly to heaven and did not require traditional mourning rituals." That is hard to hear because shiva (and YT cancelling shiva) is a rabbinic creation. Suggestions? Mordechai Cohen macohen613 at gmail.com From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 29 03:10:38 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:10:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why did Chazal cancel shiva bc of Yom tov In-Reply-To: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> References: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: That has reawakened in me the question of why did Chazal cancel shiva because of Yom tov? ====================================== As one who sat shiva at the cemetery on erev Pesach, I tried to keep in mind R'YBS's insight into true simcha as being lfnai hashem (which is what we're supposed to be on shalosh regalim). Seeing it through HKB"H's eyes it's all good (we are human and so don't experience it as such). So: She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, which will allow us all to see more clearly 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 micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:37 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 11:02:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Crazy Snakes and Dogs Message-ID: <20200730150237.GA14405@aishdas.org> We repeatedly discussed RYBS's statement that toothpaste is not ra'ui la'akhilas kelev and therefore doesn't need a hekhsher to be KLP. Not where I intended to go, but I should note that we never discussed the actual core issue -- the limits of the principle of achshevei. Since toothpaste is flavored, one could argue it does apply. RMF (IG OC 2:92), ROY (YD 2:60), the Tzitz Eliezer (10:25), says it does not apply when the flavored item isn't being eaten for the sake of the flavor. Excluding medicine -- and the same argument applies to toothpaste. The CI (OC 116:8) limits achshevei to spoiled chameitz, and not to mixtures containing chameitz. The "only" machmir about applying achshevei to medicines that I know of is the She'agas Aryeh (75). Now, back to the topic I did intent to post about.... So, the story goes (version taken from R Chaim Jachter at https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/cosmetics-and-toiletries-for-pesach-part-three-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter ): A charming anecdote that occurred in Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's Shiur at Yeshiva University in the 1970's (reported by Rav Yosef Adler and many others) is often cited in support of the common practice to be lenient. The Rav stated in Shiur that toothpaste is not Ra'ui Liachilat Kelev (unfit for canine consumption) and thus one is permitted to consume it on Pesach even if it contains Chametz. The next day in Shiur a student raised his hand and explained that he conducted an "experiment" the night before. He related that he placed toothpaste in his dog's feeding bowl to see if his dog would eat it -- and indeed, the dog ate the toothpaste!! Rav Soloveitchik simply responded, "Your dog is crazy." This story illustrates the ruling that we cited last week from Rav Soloveitchik that the standards of edibility are not determined by aberrant behavior. R Pesach Sommer recently found Tosefta Terumos 7:13, which is more famously available on Chullin 49b. It /has/ to be what RYBS was thinking of. The gemara says: Detanya: 5 [liquids] do not have [the prohibition] of gilui: brine, vinegar, oil, honey and fish gravy. Rabbi Shimon says: I saw a snake drink fish brine in Tzidon! They said to him: That [snake] was a shetaya, and one doesn't bring a proof from shotim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From hanktopas at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 20:29:43 2020 From: hanktopas at gmail.com (Henry Topas) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 23:29:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: >> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when >> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed >> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as >> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the >> same Sha'tz conclude what he started? > I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. I called it an office, not the occupent. But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same idea. I have a theory why: I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a *shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post! -Micha Shavua Tov, Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue for Kaddish Shalem? Thank you and Kol Tuv, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 02:36:36 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 12:36:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Henry Topas wrote: > > Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach > of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for > Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or > officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that > reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue > for Kaddish Shalem? What you describe is nothing I've found in the written Poskim. Where I grew up (various Yekkishe Kehiloth) the Ovel was "off the hook" when Hallel was recited. I see this being done in Yeshivishe minyonim, seemingly to "prevent" the Ovel from being Shatz for Hallel. (Also not recorded, AFAIK, except during Shiva.) So, my guess is, that since the Ovel wants to say as many Kadieshim as possible he "gets back the Omud" after Hallel - giving him one more Kaddish. This has no bearing on our discussion, it's a question (and answer) on a recent "Minhag/Hanhogo". Kol Tuv - Danny From emteitz at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 14:06:35 2020 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 17:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: Henry Topas wrote: However one looks at the office of shat"z, there is a difference between chazaras hashat"z and the rest of davening. For everything else, he is essentially a pacer, keeping everyone at the same point in davening, and the leader, in terms of kaddish and borchu. For the amidah, he is definitely a shaliach, whose role it is to be motzi those who cannot themselves daven. It would be possible theoretically not to have a shat"z, having all daven together, and then having one person who, at the appropriate times, would say kaddish and borchu. Chazaras hashat"z, however, must obviously have a shat"z. On days when Hallel is said, it is not a part of chazaras hashat"z; it is, in essence said *during *the chazara, after which the chazara is completed by saying kaddish shalem, which *is* a part of the chazara. (Hallel is in the same category as slichos on fast days, which was originally said during the shat"z's saying the bracha of Slach lanu. Then, too, I believe that someone other than the shat'"z could have led the slichos while the shat"z remained at the amud.) That the aveil should not lead Hallel, but should return for the kaddish because it is a part of the Amidah, is spelled out in the Mishna Brura (581:7). This leads to questioning the practice, when there is more than one aveil, of switching ba'alei tfila at Ashrei-Uva l'Tzion. There are some who object to the practice for that very reason, but apparently it is in the same category as allowing kaddish to be said by more than one person at a time: a concession to darkei shalom in a highly emotional setting. That the aveil not lead Hallel is the opinion of the overwhelming majority. The Mishna Brura loc.cit. brings the apparent opinion of the GR"A who goes even further, that the aveil not lead the entire Shacharis. The MB also cites, in the Biur Halacha in Siman 132, that there are those who bar the aveil from the amud on any day, other than erev Yom Kippur, that Lamnatzeiach is not said -- and does not limit it just to Shacharis on those days. (This is the minhag in my community.) Incidentally, in parts of Europe and in some shuls in EY, there is no shat"z for psukei d'zimra. The amud is unmanned until Yishtabach. If no one need be there, then certainly where there is one, there is no problem in replacing him for Yishtabach. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolberg at yebo.co.za Wed Aug 5 08:00:26 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 17:00:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Censorship in Aruch HaShulchan Message-ID: <014701d66b39$296ebf40$7c4c3dc0$@yebo.co.za> In 39:3, the AH writes: ger (beyamim kadmonim). This was obviously added for the gov censor, similar to Aruch HaShulchan ChM 388:7. Why do we not find the same in MB? Actually, AH OC was written after the same section in MB. Was the political climate in Novardok and Radin so different? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 10 00:52:25 2020 From: eliturkel at mail.gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:52:25 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potato chips and french fries Message-ID: A nice article on the various opinions of bishul akum for french fries and potato chips https://vosizneias.com/2020/08/10/chareidi-potato-chips-versus-regular-chips/ -- Eli Turkel From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 13:42:35 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:42:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Chaim Brisker on his 102nd Yahrzeit Message-ID: <20200811204234.GA9159@aishdas.org> R Elinatan Kupferburg posted this today on Facebook, lekhavod RCB's 102nd yahrzeit (21 Av). Translitarations mine, "q"s and all. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Today is the yahrzeit of [Maran shel kol Benei Yisrael, Rabbeinu Chaim haLevi,] R. Chaim Soloveitchik. It is far beyond this post, or this site, to capture any of the towering significance of Rabbeinu. For that, there's only one thing to do. You have to learn R. Chaim. You sit for hours poring over a sugya without R. Chaim, only to open the sefer and have R. Chaim, with his penetrating, elegant brilliance guide you through the depths of the sea of Talmud. It's as if you were overhearing snippets of a conversation without knowing the topic and then someone revealed it to you and now everything you heard suddenly falls into place. But I do want to make a couple of points about R. Chaim's legacy. Perhaps the most common metonym used to describe or exemplify what is referred to as "the Brisker method," is the cheftza/gavra distinction, often compared to the in rem/in personam legal distinction, though the two are not entirely analogous. It's part of a broader tendency to describe or teach "the Brisker method" by means of a few templatic distinctions: internal/external, intrinsic/accidental, action/result and so on, and has recently been reinforced by books or pamphlets which attempt to do the same. Unfortunately, not only are these gross simplifications and reductions, they entirely obscure what R. Chaim was actually doing, replace it with a different method of study (albeit one that is more prominent in some of his students, notably R. Elchonon Wasserman) and thereby miss his genius. The halakhic discourse, the lomdus, that pervades the Brisk Yeshiva that grew out of the study group around his son R. Velvel (the Brisker Rav) or the other yeshivas it birthed (including BMG), is dissimilar to this perception. 1. The words [cheftza] and [gavra] do not ever appear anywhere in the same piece in [Chiddushei Rabbeinu Chaim haLevi]!! Yes, really. (Except once in [Mekhilah 22:17,] when [gavra] is a quote from the Gemara, i.e. [hahu gavra]). There's a very good reason for that. Because making templatic distinctions is entirely different than what R. Chaim was doing. R. Chaim was elucidating the concepts that underlie and inform halakhic discourse. What is nature of a legal document? What type of obligation is the command is rid chametz? How does a blemish render an animal unfit for sacrifice? Under which mitzva is this prohibition included? R. Chaim's success is defined by precision of conceptual description, which is opposed to templatic rigidity. The only time that [gavra / cheftza] is actually widely used is in Nedarim 2b, in the distinction between vows and oaths, since there the distinction literally is the locus of the prohibition (vows designate an object as forbidden, oaths compel a person to act in a certain way). Often his discussion is not remotely similar to any of the popular "chakiras." For example, the section of the MT that gets the most attention in R. Chaim is the recondite [Hilkhos Tum'as Meis,] in which the pedestrian templates fail. Distinction is a helpful tool in the art of clarity and the halakhic world is composed of human agents and non-human objects, so parts of his discourse may approximate the infamous [gavra / cheftza] but it is by no means central or representative. To be fair, the templatic perception captures certain aspects of some of his chiddushim, and it does communicate the notion of underlying dyadic conceptual distinctions, but I wonder about its ultimate efficacy. 2. The distinctions that approximate [gavra / cheftza] are much older than R. Chaim. Just to give a few examples: - Rivash (Shut 98) extends the gemara's analysis in Nedarim to all prohibitions. - Rid (Eiruvin 48a) uses it describe the prohibition of transporting an object 4 amos in the public domain on Shabbos. - Chasam Sofer (Chullin 115b) uses it to distinguish different types of prohibitions. - Beis Halevi (Shut 3:51 - R. Chaim's father) uses it to explain the nature of the mitzva to eat korbanos. In a broader sense, this type of analysis can be found most acutely in (to give a few examples, moving backwords) Minchas Chinuch, R. Akiva Eiger, the works of R. Aryeh Leib Heller and R. Yaakov Lorberbaum, Peri Megadim, and, most strikingly, by R. Judah Rosanes, whose [Mishneh laMelekh] and [Parashas Derakhim,] two centuries ahead of their time, prefigured much of the Brisker Torah. Of course, the Gemara and Rishonim (Rashi and Meiri come to mind) are not absent of this lomdus either. A recent terminological case from Daf Yomi: take the discussion about perforating an old hole in a wine barrel on Shabbos 146b, where Rashi describes the halakhic crux as whether or not [paqa sheim 'pesach' mineih.] 3. R. Chaim did a lot of things. - He tightened a terminology. - He sharpened the analysis of halakhic concepts. - He displayed a new way of visualizing a sugya and working through it. - He identified the conceptual systematization that forms the substructure of the Mishneh Torah. - He developed a proto-philosophy of halakhic hermeneutics. - He opened the door for gaonim like R. Shimon Shkop to take analysis in a different direction. - By shifting the backdrop from practical halakha to halakha itself, he enabled us to see halakhic concepts not only as useful for determining practice, but as a way through which to view and interact with the world. Each of these deserves a sustained, independent analysis to identify the existing terminologies and approaches that R. Chaim drew on, and the extent of his own innovative prowess. Most powerfully though, he forever changed the halakhic consciousness. Conceptual analysis is now an inexorable part of the talmudic arsenal. Any advanced student of traditional Gemara who sits down to learn has been sensitized to the possibility of a conceptual distinction at play, even if they have no intention of using what they consider "the Brisker method." For some, R. Chaim's thought is so overwhelming that one can never look at Gemara differently again. But I might venture to say that its power lies in the recognition that even if someone does not walk down the path R. Chaim cleared, then that is precisely what they are doing: not learning like R. Chaim. R. Chaim fundamentally defined the contours of halakhic thought, and we are all in his debt. [Ki gadol sheim avinu beYisrael, ve'or Toraso male'ah teiveil -- misof ha'olam ad sofo mamash, umi zeh milomedei Sorah bedoreinu asher lo zarach alav or shimsho venogah Soraso.] From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Aug 11 14:37:14 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:37:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin Message-ID: If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? 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 zev at sero.name Wed Aug 12 08:07:36 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:07:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/8/20 5:37 pm, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another?s birchat hanehenin > and then did not eat, is it a bracha l?vatala for him? I don't see how it can be. The bracha had effect for the person who said it, so it was not wasted. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:23:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:23:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200812202354.GA10738@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 09:37:14PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin > and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? Berakhah levatalah sounds like a description of the "cheftza" of the berakhah. Not gavra-specific. And what would be levatalah, the mevoreikh's kavvanah to be motzi him? Safeiq berakhos lehaqeil is sometimes explained as safeiq deOraisa lechumerah where the deOraisa is sheim Hashem lashav. Along those lines, one could theorize that as long as the sheim wasn't said lashav, it's not a berakhah levatalah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals http://www.aishdas.org/asp is not as important as Author: Widen Your Tent what you become by achieving your goals. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Henry David Thoreau From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Sun Aug 16 08:51:59 2020 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 11:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Business with an Akum Message-ID: One is not permitted to do any kind of business with an Akum (idol-worshipper) on the day of their festival (nor 3 days prior in the Land of Israel) - Rambam Hil. Avodah Zara Ch. 9, Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 148.1. Question - Today, if I know a shop owner is a religious Xian, am I allowed to shop there on Sunday? Or if I know he is a religious Hindu, do I need to mark my calendar with all of the Hindu festivals and avoid his shop on those days? What about a traditional Chinese person on Chinese New Year? Or a Catholic on All Souls Day? If so, is there any halachic literature that lists all of the dates currently forbidden? (I?m also not allowed to sell to him on his holidays, and if I do (in error), I?m not allowed to enjoy the profits of that sale.) Alexander Seinfeld From joelirarich at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 03:47:26 2020 From: joelirarich at gmail.com (Joel Rich) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 06:47:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat hamazon Message-ID: <8FD081BF-3F42-460C-BE16-588F69071B09@gmail.com> A group of people are having Shabbos meal together in the dining room. They all get up to clear the main course dishes and bring them into the kitchen. The dessert flatware and glasses remain on the table Must they say birchat hamazon immediately upon return to the table? Kt Joel rich From micha at aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 09:00:38 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 12:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re'eih vs Shema Message-ID: <20200816160038.GA25978@aishdas.org> Because we say the words from Va'eschanan multiple times a day, I have heard (pun intended, sadly) a lot about shema when it means something more than the stimulation of neurons in my inner ear. Like the English word "listen", "shema" connotes paying attention, obeying ("eiqev asher shamata beQoli"), etc... So, what do we get from the use of "re'eih", as in the title of this week's parashah? In the past couple of days, I cam up with a theory about the difference between shemi'ah and re'iyah, but want to vet it with the chevrah. Shema introduces a theological fact we can only accept in the abstract. We don't even fully understand how One, Indivisible and Unique Hashem is. We are told to accept ol malkhus Shamayim on this basis, but the fact itself is one we can apprehend, not experience. Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite different than an abstract truth. (This seems to be consistent with "ein domeh shemi'ah lere'iyah". "Re'iyah" is something I can know first-hand.) Ta chazi in the bavli seems to also fit this pattern: Berakhos 58a: Rav Sheishes says to a min, "ta chazi" that I am brighter than you, proceding to show he figured out when the king would come. But then, the point was made at the beginning ot the story that R Sheishes was blind, so ht emay have been using the phrase pointed. Eiruvin 6b: ta chazi that the gates of Neharda'ah couldn't be locked. (And thus Shemu'el doesn't require they be locked in order to permit carrying.) Etc... All cases of "go and check for yourself". Nothing at all like "ta shema", which introduces learning a teaching. And of course "puq chazi". But in the Yerushalmi and the Zohar, "ta chazi" is used the way "ta shema" is in Bavel. So, maybe I am just reading too much into Bavli idiom. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a http://www.aishdas.org/asp person is to remain asleep and untamed." Author: Widen Your Tent - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From kbloom at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 14:30:40 2020 From: kbloom at gmail.com (Ken Bloom) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:30:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? Message-ID: Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Aug 17 15:37:49 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 22:37:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Dialectics? Message-ID: An important caveat (IMHO) from R' A Lebowitz to a number of shiurim from diverse speakers: Me-....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y, and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y? R' AL-I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just a helpful way to contextualize the issues I'm still thinking there's another paradigm shift coming, interested in hearing from others. 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 doniels at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 04:55:45 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:55:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > From: "Rich, Joel" > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3 (excuse the Hebrew for the ????? crowd) - translation from Sefaria (after removing a Chumra not in the original): ????? ????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ?????????, ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ?????????????, ???? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???????. "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi shebeirach [a blessing for those who fast on these days] and you intended to fast, this is sufficient, and no other form of acceptance is needed. " ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query. Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of getting the best of both worlds. Kol Tuv - Danny From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Aug 18 05:43:47 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:43:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query. Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of getting the best of both worlds. ============================================== When I learned this with my chavruta a few months back my comment was - I'd love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - machshava balma (random thought?) which has no halachic significance, amira (specific oral articulation) which is completely binding and amen/specific machshava(really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat indeterminate (not welcome in a brisker world?) 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 doniels at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 05:03:54 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:03:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Re'eih vs Shema In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMB reminded me of a vort I heard and said over at this week's Shabbos table. The opening word of the Sedra - Re'eih - is seemingly superfluous. "I present you today with [the ability to choose between] blessing or curse". What does "Look! I present you...." add? The answer was exactly as RMB proposed: > Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the > world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite > different than an abstract truth. We need to look around and see how choice and its consequences are built into the creation. Kol Tuv - Danny From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Aug 18 05:54:11 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 08:54:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. looking for sources and current custom Message-ID: <015401d6755e$aba2ff10$02e8fd30$@touchlogic.com> #! ... May a women uncover her hair in private? Halachah addresses public, semipublic, and private settings: Public: The Torah states that a woman must completely cover her hair in a public place. Some opinions state that under a tefach (a handbreadth, about three inches total) of hair may show. Semipublic: In a semipublic place, one opinion states that even if men are not usually found there, a married woman must cover her hair. When a woman covers her hair, this brings much blessing into the home Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory...." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required." Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? #2 https://www.yoatzot.org/questions-and-answers/1910/ Question: Does a woman have to cover her hair in front of her brothers? Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the presence of your father, husband and son. Where it is customary and not considered offensive, a woman may uncover her hair in front of her brother in the privacy of her own home. Is this leniency known/relied upon? Is this what people are doing out there today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 17:51:37 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:51:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200819005137.GB6547@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 02:55:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote: > I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3... > "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday > following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi > shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient... > "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you > may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." > This last line is -- in my mind -- parallel to your query. > Seems that answering Amen -- even with intention -- is one way of > getting the best of both worlds. I think the best of both worlds may only because you said amein to blessing the fasters, and not "me too" to someone's pledge to fast. There is mental acceptance during a related verbal act. Not a verbal acceptance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but the lighting of a fire. Author: Widen Your Tent - W.B. Yeats - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 17:48:02 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:48:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Dialectics? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200819004802.GA6547@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:37:49PM +0000, Joel Rich wrote: > Me- >> ....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I >> just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y, >> and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean >> choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y? > R' AL[ebowitz]- >> I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just >> a helpful way to contextualize the issues When discussing Brisker vs Telzher derakhim, everyone focuses on "Vus?" vs "Fahr vus?" (What? vs Why?) But another major different is R' Shimon's heavy use of the concept of hitztarfus -- the idea that a halakhah can be caused by the convergence of multiple factors. >From Widen Your Tent (by me), sec. 6.3: But there is a second distinction: Rav Chaim would explain an apparent contradiction by finding "the chiluk," the distinction between two cases that we initially thought ought to be the same, or the distinction between the viewpoints in two sides of a dispute. Rav Chaim's is a reductionist approach to analyzing a topic; it teaches how to understand something by identifying and understanding each of its parts. This methodology is suited for identifying "the cause" of a law. Rav Shimon also invokes hitztarfus, fusion or connectedness. It allows us to better ask, once we know the parts, how do they combine and interact to produce the given result? From this vantage point, rather than looking for a single cause, we can see that a given ruling can come from the way in which many halachic causes combine. Suppose we were tasked to do analysis to find out why some accident happened. For example: Why did David hurt his foot? Because a paint can fell on it. Why did the can fall? Because someone else accidentally knocked it off its shelf. Why did he knock it off the shelf? Because his nose itched, and he lifted his hand to scratch it, and also because the shelf wasn't on its brackets correctly and wobbled a bit. However, it's equally true that he hurt his foot because even though he usually wears iron-toed hiking boots, he chose not to wear them that that day. And why did he not wear his boots? Because when he was looking for something to put on his feet, someone else had turned on the light in another room, which changed his train of thought. And so on. Every event has many causes, each of which in turn has its own many causes. Rarely does an event only have one cause. We get used to identifying "the cause" of something. I would instead suggest that every event is like "the perfect storm"; each one has combinations of factors that come to a head at the same point. Similarly, Rav Shimon saw no reason to assume that it takes one cause to create an obligation or prohibition, rather than a combination of them. Which I then relate to R Shimon's approach to chessed as a widening of one's "ani" to include others. (The way we naturally have little problem giving to our children, because in a sense, they're "us".) I also use the difference between the focus on reductionism vs interconnectedness to explain a structural difference between Aristo's books and the Mishnah. WHich may be more relevant to the point: This difference between Semitic and Yefetic perspectives can be seen by contrasting the style of Aristotle with that of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Aristotle catalogues. He divides a subject into subtopics, and those subtopics even further, until one is down to the individual fact. Greek thought was focused on reductionism. To understand a phenomenon, break it down into smaller pieces and try to understand each piece. This is typical of the Yefetic perspective. That reductionism stands in contrast to the way Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi redacted the first Mishnah. The beginning of all of Mishnah could have said outright that Rabbi Eliezer ruled that the time for saying the evening Shema is from sunset and for the first third of the night. This is the way United States legal codes are arranged divided and subdivided into law, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, clauses, and items, with an effort to minimize cross-references. Instead the first Mishnah makes its point by invoking the priesthood, purity, and the night shifts in the Temple, "from the time Kohanim [who went to the mikvah to be purified during the prior day] may enter to eat their terumah until the end of the first shift." It describes the start and end times for the mitzvah using referents that one wouldn't normally assume when starting study. This is not to confuse the issue or needlessly close study from non-initiates, but because the key to understanding one mitzvah necessarily includes its connections to everything else. The proper time to say Shema cannot be understood without that context. The task Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi set out to accomplish with the Mishnah was not to explain the rationales of the halachah, and therefore the Mishnah spells out this holistic understanding. We are left not knowing why the rules of when Kohanim who needed the mikvah may eat terumah or the time the first shift in the Beis Hamikdash ended add meaning to the time span in which the nighttime Shema may be said. But the Mishnah does record the law in memorizable form, and apparently that includes helping us remember the halachah by association to the other halachos it relates to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur http://www.aishdas.org/asp with the proper intent than to fast on Yom Author: Widen Your Tent Kippur with that intent. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 12:42:04 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Limits of Parshanut Message-ID: <20200820194204.GA9194@aishdas.org> Parshanut doesn't have rules of pesaq. Nothing ever ends an opinion (lifsoq) once it is derived. So, those 98 ways become 9,604 ways, and then 941,192 ways as each interpretation gets its 98 interpretations. And then we have cases where those who pursue peshat -- Rashbam, IE, most famously -- give a peshat in the pasuq which they acknowledge runs against Chazal. But they feel Chazal weren't working bederekh peshat. (And the Rashbam is clear that he doesn't believe Chazal were wrong, or that anything he says about the pasuq has halachic signicance. E.g. see his comments on "vayhi erev, vayhi boqer".) But, procedurally, there still has to be rules for what kind of interpretation is valid and what aren't. I cannot believe that people can just make stuff up, and if fits a linguistic oddity of the text or a wording in some source of Chazal it's necessarily Torah. I don't know what the limits are. All I know is the limits of my own comfort zone. *To me*, "toras Hashem temimah" means that if I have a theory of how to understand something aggadic -- theology, mussar or parshanut -- it must be driven by material internal to the existing body Torah. If I am forced to an an entirely new understanding that no one proposed before to answer a scientific question, I would prefer leaving the question tabled, teiqu, than to run with this kind of innovation. To me, following a tendency I heard around YU from R YB Soloveitchik's students (my own rebbe, R Dovid, was yet more conservative), this is related to the difference between chiddush and shinui. "There is no beis medrash without chiddush" because learning Torah means extrapolating new points from the existing data. Extrapolation from and interpolation between existing Torah "data points" is chiddush. Shinui is innovation driven by something other than Torah. I am not sure if RYBS would say that in the context of parshanut in particular or not. As I said, as this point we're only discussing the not-that-relevant topic of "Micha's comfort zone". Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... http://www.aishdas.org/asp ... but you're the pilot. Author: Widen Your Tent - R' Zelig Pliskin - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 13:27:15 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:27:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vaccine Trials in Halakhah Message-ID: <20200820202715.GA32236@aishdas.org> Given the need for CoVID-19 vaccine challenge trials, I heard a number of podcasts on the topics of testing or volunteering to be a test subject for an experimental cure. But, it's hard to get people who are reading an email digest to take time for an audio. So, here's a link to something in text. https://thelehrhaus.com/timely-thoughts/signing-up-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-trial Here's the halachic section of the paper, minus all set-up and general ethics discussion. Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; http://www.aishdas.org/asp Experience comes from bad decisions. Author: Widen Your Tent - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF The Lehrhaus Signing Up for a COVID-19 Vaccine Trial By Sharon Galper Grossman and Shamai Grossman August 18, 2020 ... Undergoing Dangerous Medical Procedures in Halakhah Halakhah's approach to dangerous medical procedures begins with Avodah Zara 27b, which permits a hayei sha'ah - a sick individual with a limited time to live - to seek the care of a pagan doctor, because while we worry that a Jew-hating doctor might kill the Jewish patient, he might also effect a long-term cure. However, if the sick individual is unlikely to die, he may not turn to the pagan. The Gemara's explanation as to why we permit the hayei sha'ah to risk his brief remaining time alive is, "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" - we are not concerned about a risk to a short life because the pagan doctor might cure him. The Gemara derives this principle from the dilemma of the four lepers in II Kings 7:3-8. Banished from their city, which was struck by famine, they faced starvation. They saw a camp of Arameans possessing food, and were confronted by the following dilemma. If they were to enter the camp, the Arameans might kill them, yet they might feed them. Preferring possible immediate death from capture to certain subsequent death from starvation, the lepers entered the camp. There they discovered an abundance of food and survived. Tosafot (s.v. le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan) questions the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan." Doesn't Yoma 65a's permission to move stones on Shabbat to search for a hayei sha'ah buried underneath the rubble imply that we value even the briefest survival? Tosafot answers that in both cases we act in the best interest of the patient, rejecting certain death for an uncertainty that might prolong life. Thus, in Avodah Zarah, we disregard hayei sha'ah because otherwise the patient will surely die. In Yoma, we desecrate Shabbat for the hayei sha'ah because if we do not remove the stones, he will also certainly die. Based on Avodah Zara 27b and the story of the lepers, Shulhan Arukh Yoreh De'ah 155:1 codifies the principal "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan," permitting a hayei sha'ah to incur the risk of death at the hands of a pagan doctor in the hope of a long-term cure. Numerous modern poskim[7] rule that a hayei sha'ah may undergo a risky medical procedure if it offers the chance of a long-term cure. Shevut Ya'akov 3:75 explains, "Since the patient will certainly die, we push off the certainty of death and opt for the possibility of cure." One source, however, seems to prohibit the hayei sha'ah from undergoing dangerous medical treatment. Sefer Hasidim 467 describes a special herb remedy with the potential to kill or cure within days of use, accusing the women who prepared it of shortening the lives of their patients. One might interpret his denunciation as a rejection of the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan." Orhot Hayyim, Orah Hayyim 328:10 dismisses this interpretation, explaining that Sefer Hasidim only prohibits the risky remedy because there is an alternative safe treatment. He argues that in the absence of an effective alternative even Sefer Hasidim would accept the risk. Applied to our case ,the absence of an effective cure for COVID-19 might justify engaging in a risky process to find a cure. Does the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" permit healthy volunteers like Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial that injects half of the participants with a vaccine of uncertain benefit, exposing them to a lethal virus? To answer this question, we must determine if hayei sha'ah applies to healthy volunteers who do not face the risk of immediate death, the level of medical risk one may incur to achieve hayei olam (long-term cure), and the level of benefit required to justify the assumption of such risk. In addition, we must establish whether the volunteers may endanger themselves, in the absence of any personal gain, purely for the benefit of others, and whether this principle applies to experimental therapies where the benefit of treatment is unclear. Finally, if Halakhah permits participation, is one obligated to volunteer? Defining Hayei Sha'ah The discussion permitting dangerous medical treatment assumed that the individual had the status of hayei sha'ah - a terminal illness with a limited time to live. Can we interpret hayei sha'ah more broadly, and can we apply this understanding to human vaccine challenge trials involving healthy volunteers? Rishonim and early Aharonim do not define hayei sha'ah precisely. Their interpretation of the term ranges from a life expectancy as short as one to two days to longer than a year (see Table 1). Though these poskim debate the exact duration of life required to satisfy the halakhic definition of hayei sha'ah, they view a hayei sha'ah as an individual with an illness that compromises his life expectancy. At first glance, these poskim would not classify Sam, a healthy young volunteer, as a hayei sha'ah. However, Tiferet Yisrael Yoma, Yakhin 8:3, expands the definition, permitting a healthy individual to undergo smallpox vaccination, which causes death in one in 1,000 individuals, to attain long-term immunity. He dismisses the small risk of immediate death from vaccination so as to prevent future lethal infections and broadens the definition of hayei sha'ah to include situations where the cause of death is not present, but is only a statistical possibility. He bases this ruling on Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which, citing the Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, obligates a person to place himself in a possible danger to save his friend from a certain danger. So for example, if someone sees his friend drowning in the sea, he must jump in to save him though he risks drowning during his attempted rescue. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if a bystander is obligated to incur possible risk to rescue his drowning friend from a possible danger, a healthy individual may accept possible immediate peril to save himself from a possible future danger. Rabbi J.D. Bleich applies Tiferet Yisrael's definition of hayei sha'ah to healthy carriers of the BRCA mutation who act to reduce their high risk of cancer by opting for prophylactic surgery.[8] Though the cancer has not yet developed, they may incur the immediate risk of surgery to increase their life expectancy.[9] Even if we consider a genetic predisposition or a statistical probability a present danger, it is unlikely that unafflicted carriers of such a mutation will die within twelve months. By permitting a healthy individual to assume a one in 1,000 risk of immediate death to prevent a future lethal smallpox infection, Tiferet Yisrael suggests that Halakhah recognizes the importance of disease prevention, equating it with treatments for active life-threatening disease. His halakhic analysis and assessment might permit a healthy volunteer such as Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial to achieve immunity from COVID-19. However, such a trial involves substantial risk without proven benefits. In addition, because Tiferet Yisrael bases his position on the Yerushalmi which obligates an individual to endanger himself to save someone who faces certain danger, Tiferet Yisrael might even allow Sam to participate in the absence of any personal benefit, for pure altruism to save humanity. Defining a Permissible Level of Risk Aharonim debate the exact level of risk the hayei sha'ah may incur. Ahiezer 2:16:6 cites Mishnat Hakhamim to permit a dangerous treatment for a safek shakul - a risk of death less than or equal to 50%. If the risk of death exceeds 50%, the hayei sha'ah may not receive the treatment. This is also the opinion of Tzitz Elieze r 10:25:5:5. If the majority of physicians endorse treatment, Ahiezer permits a risk greater than 50% and does not define the upper limit of permitted risk. Because any COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial would receive the prior approval of an overseeing body of physicians, Ahiezer might permit participation for a risk higher than 50%. Beit David Yoreh De'ah II:340 permits a hayei sha'ah to receive a treatment that causes death in 999 out of 1,000 patients. In 1961, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58, permitted a treatment in which the odds were more than 50% that it would cause death. However, in 1972 (Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 3:36), he modified his position, permitting only a safek shakul. He concludes that a hayei sha'ah who seeks medical treatment with a greater than 50% risk of death may rely on the more lenient position of Ahiezer and receive the dangerous therapy. How does Sam's participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial compare to the risks that these poskim cite? They address situations where the person is terminally ill and faces imminent death, but do not define the level of risk a healthy individual may incur. However, Tiferet Yisrael permits a healthy individual to undergo vaccination against smallpox with a risk of death of one in 1,000. For all adults age 20-29 infected with COVID-19, including those with comorbidities, virologists estimate a 1.1% risk of complications requiring hospitalization and 0.03% risk of death,[10] an approximation that might either overestimate or underestimate Sam's true risk. Sam, who suffers no comorbidities, might be at the low end of the participation risk. Furthermore, because Sam lives in an area with a large number of COVID-19 cases, he is already at high risk of infection; participation only minimally increases this. Should he become infected, he will receive state-of-the-art care, which might reduce his complications. In addition, if researchers identify an effective treatment, that treatment would further diminish his participation risk. With appropriate risk minimization (e.g., careful titration of viral dose, early diagnosis, and optimal medical care), Sam might face little, if any, additional risk related to experimental infection. Alternatively, Sam's risk of death might be higher than estimated because the vaccine or the strain of virus injected might increase the severity of infection or the incidence of lasting harm. In addition, because the virus is so new and follow-up of those infected limited, the long-term risks of COVID-19 infection are unknown and might be greater than anticipated. Even if Sam's risk from participating is higher than estimated, his danger of death is still well below the 50% threshold that the above poskim use and the 0.1% risk that Tifferet Yisrael permits for healthy individuals undergoing smallpox vaccination. Definition of Hayei Olam - What Benefits Justify Risk? The above discussion, which explored a hayei sha'ah's acceptable level of risk with regard to medical treatments, assumed that the goal of treatment is to achieve hayei olam, a long-term cure. Poskim disagree about whether one may undergo a dangerous therapy for any other purpose, such as prolonging life in the absence of a complete recovery or the relief of pain and symptoms. Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58 and 3:36 prohibits risky treatment that merely prolongs life in the absence of complete recovery. Rav Bleich offers a different perspective.[11] Quoting Ramban's Torat ha-Adam,[12] which derives from the phrase, "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" the principle that "we are not concerned with possible [loss of] hayei sha'ah in the face of more life (hayei tuva)," Rav Bleich interprets "hayei tuva" to mean more life, and concludes that Ramban would permit dangerous medical treatment to achieve a longer period of hayei sha'ah, even in the absence of a cure. Iggerot Moshe Yore De'ah II:36 prohibits dangerous treatment for pain relief alone. Rav Yaakov Emden, Mor u-Kezi'ah 328, writes that surgery for pain relief is not "hutar le-gamrei," categorically permitted, suggesting that under specific circumstances it might be allowed. Tzitz Eliezer 13:87 permits morphine for a dying patient, although morphine might hasten his death, because nothing torments man more than intractable pain. Thus, Tzitz Eliezer would argue, a hayei sha'ah may undergo dangerous treatment not just to achieve hayei olam but also to achieve hayei tuva, longer life or pain relief. What is the benefit to Sam of participating in the human vaccine challenge trial? Will participation give him hayei olam, hayei tuva, or some other non-life prolonging benefit? First, vaccination itself or infection with or without vaccination might yield hayei olam -- a long-term cure and permanent immunity to COVID-19, akin to Tiferet Yisrael's smallpox vaccine. However, it is possible that the vaccine or infection will only provide temporary immunity. Here, participation will not achieve hayei olam, but only hayei tuva, but revaccination to boost his immunity could yield hayei olam. Second, because Sam lives in a high-infection zone, he faces a real risk of becoming infected even if he does not participate. Participation guarantees Sam priority in the allocation of medical resources and the best medical care should he become infected. By participating, Sam decreases his risk of complications and death from infection. Better care could improve his medical outcome and increase his chances of surviving COVID-19, thus facilitating hayei olam. Furthermore, if he develops immunity, he can no longer infect his family. The possibility of achieving long-term or short-term immunity to COVID-19, better treatment if infected, and relieving anxiety over infecting others are direct benefits to Sam for participating in the trial. However, it is possible that participation will provide no benefit, direct or indirect, to Sam. Sam's ultimate motivation for participation, like that of the thousands of volunteers who have come forward to participate in these trials, is altruism, helping to discover an effective vaccine that will save millions of lives. May one undergo a dangerous treatment in order to save others? Incurring Risk to Save Others Citing Talmud Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426 obligates one to place himself in a possible danger to save the life of someone facing certain danger. In Shulhan Arukh, Rav Yosef Karo and Rama omit this requirement. Sema Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 explains that Shulhan Arukh and Rama follow Rambam, Rif, Rosh, and Tur, who also omit this obligation. Pithei Teshuvah Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 suggests that they omitted this obligation because it contradicts Talmud Bavli (Niddah 61a and Sanhedrin 73a) and Jewish law typically follows Talmud Bavli. Radbaz 3:627 (53) was asked if a foreign government demands that a Jew undergo removal of a limb, a procedure presumed not to endanger his life, to save the life of another Jew, may one do so. He answers that one who consents acts with midat hasidut, a degree of piety, but if amputation will endanger his life, he is a hasid shoteh, acting illogically by violating the commandment va-hai bahem (which Sanhedrin 74a understands to mean that mitzvot are to live by and not die by). Similarly, in in Radbaz 5 Lilshonot ha-Rambam 1:582 (218), he addresses whether one is obligated to save the life of a fellow Jew, he explains that if the rescuer faces a safek mukhra - a certain danger - he has no obligation to act. But if the odds are greater that he will save his friend without endangering himself, failure to rescue transgresses lo ta'amod al dam rei'ekha. Tiferet Yisrael bases his teshuvah permitting a healthy volunteer to undergo smallpox vaccination on Talmud Yerushalmi and Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which obligate a person to place himself in danger to save a drowning friend. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if one may endanger himself to rescue his friend from danger, he may certainly assume risk of vaccination to save himself and achieve long-term immunity. In fact, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:174:4 permits one to accept a possible danger if it will save someone else from a definite danger. Tzitz Eliezer 13:101 rules that one may participate in experimental therapy and donate blood to benefit others if physicians determine that participation is risk-free. We consider such participation a mitzvah. In this situation, however, physicians cannot determine the risk of Sam's participating in the human vaccine trial and cannot claim that the trial is without risk. In Yehaveh Da'at 3:84, Rav Ovadia Yosef prohibits treatment with a risk greater than 50% based on Radbaz's classification of a rescuer who endangers himself for a safek shakul as a hasid shoteh. Rav Ovadia Yosef states that the majority of Aharonim, including Eliyah Rabba 328:8, Netziv ha-Emek She'eilah Re'eh 147:4, Aruh Ha-shulkhan 426, Mishpat Kohen 143-2, Heikhal Yitzhak Orah Hayyim 3, and Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 1:145, support this position. However, he permits kidney donation and even considers it a mitzvah, because the risk to the donor is low; according to the physicians with whom he consulted, 99% of donors recover fully from the operation. Interestingly, like Rav Ovadia Yosef, ethicists point to kidney donation as a model for determining the level of risk one may accept to benefit others[13,14] and consider the risk of death from participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial equivalent to the risk of death from kidney donation.[15] Because the risk of death from participating in this trial is significantly less than 50% and is comparable to the risk of kidney donation, Halakhah would seem to permit Sam's altruistic enrollment to save others from certain death from the virus. In fact, Sam's participation, which has the potential to save not just one life, like a kidney donor, but millions, is not only permitted but meritorious. One might even argue that Sam is obligated to participate based on lo ta'amod al dam rei'ekha. Rav Asher Weiss in Minhat Asher 3:122 cites Ta'anit 18b as proof that an individual may endanger himself to save the community, and in doing so performs a great mitzvah. According to Rashi, Turyanus, a Roman official, accused the Jews of murdering the emperor's daughter. He threatened mass execution unless the guilty party confessed. To save the community, Lilianus and Pappus, falsely do so. Turyanos executes them and spares the community. Rav Weiss concludes that an individual who gives his life to save the community has a direct path to the Garden of Eden. He states that when a nation is at war, there are unique rules of pikuah nefesh, the obligation to save a life. To win, the nation requires the self-sacrifice of not only its soldiers, but all those who fill essential, life-saving roles, such as police officers, fire fighters, security guards, and physicians. In the midst of a pandemic that has infected 13,000,000 and led to the death of 500,000 worldwide, one may reasonably conclude that we are at war with COVID-19, and that Sam and the other volunteers for a human vaccine challenge trial are voluntary conscripts. Though Halakhah permits one to undergo risky treatment to achieve a long-term cure, poskim, including Tiferet Yisrael Yoma 8:3, do not obligate participation. If the chance that the treatment will succeed is greater than 50%, Iggerot Moshe in Yore De'ah 3:36 and Choshen Mishpat 2:74:5 Rav Bleich explains that assuming risk for a long-term cure is permitted but not obligatory, because we trust a person to do what is reasonable to safeguard his body from danger. For those who are risk averse, undertaking a dangerous treatment or participating in a human vaccine trial would be unreasonable, while for the less conservative, such as Sam, the risk is acceptable. Experimental Therapy in Halakhah The discussion about dangerous medical treatment applies to therapies with known medical benefits. How does Halakhah approach risks incurred for experimental therapy with no proven benefit? Ttitz Eliezer 13:101 limits participation in experimental treatment to trials that are risk-free. Rav Moshe Dov Welner in ha-Torah ve-haMedinah, VII-VIII (5716-5717), 314, prohibits participation in clinical trials that lack scientific basis. He addresses a situation where the physician has no idea how to treat a disease and decides to experiment on a dying patient because the patient will die anyway. He calls such a physician a terrorist. The scientific reality surrounding human vaccine trials is vastly different than this extreme example. While the exact benefits of participation - such as whether the vaccine confers immunity and whether it will eradicate COVID-19 - are unknown, these trials employ vaccines that have already shown promise in preliminary trials and undergone extensive review by governmental and international agencies that have approved their scientific merit as potential vaccines. Such trials would not qualify as acts of desperation, implemented because the patient is dying anyway. Minhat Shlomo 2:82:12 permits participation in medical research, classifying the battle against disease as a milhemet mitzvah, a necessary war. Today we do not have a king or beit din to declare a milhemet mitzvah against disease and obligate the healthy to take dangerous medicines to help find a cure. He writes that because recognized experts, our contemporary equivalent of a beit din or king, take great care to execute these studies, one may participate. He explains that participation qualifies as holeh lefanenu, the presence of an actual sick person before us, which is considered a fundamental halakhic requirement for defining a situation as pikuah nefesh. In Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De'ah 280, Rav Yehezkel Landau prohibited autopsies because they are for the benefit of future patients, not those who appear before us now, and thus fail to meet a strict definition of holeh lefanenu.[16] Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explains that those autopsies were performed exclusively to increase the physician's knowledge, so are not comparable to experimental therapy. Rav Auerbach believes that contemporary medical research qualifies as holeh lefanenu because those sick with these diseases are before us, and the treatments to be tested are before us. He considers participation in clinical trials safek hatzalat nefashot - possibly life-saving - and not merely an academic exercise to increase scientific knowledge. Human Vaccine Challenge Trials Recently, Rav Asher Weiss[17] directly addressed the permissibility of participating in such trials. Reiterating his position in Minhat Asher 3:101 that one may endanger oneself to perform an essential communal role such as serving as a police officer, rescue worker, or even judge who risks death threats, he permits young, healthy individuals to participate in COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trials in controlled environments because the risk of complications or death is low, especially for those who are young and lack comorbidities, and the trial can potentially save thousands of lives. He notes the concerns of Noda be-Yehuda[18] and Hatam Sofer,[19] who prohibited autopsies because such procedures failed to satisfy their halakhic definition of holeh lefanenu. Rav Weiss explains that even if we do not define participation as pikuah nefesh, overriding biblical and rabbinic prohibitions, it is a mitzvah since it will save millions of lives. This social good permits Sam to assume the small risk of participation. Furthermore, one cannot extrapolate from the autopsies of the Noda be-Yehuda to contemporary scientific reality. It is highly unlikely that autopsies performed two hundred years ago affected medical care. He writes, "verifying the efficacy of a vaccine would not be categorized as a benefit in the distant future, but rather as a great mitzvah that is, in fact, halakhically considered to be possibly life-saving." He rejects Rav Auerbach's classification of medical research as milhemet mitzvah because this designation obligates participation in medical research, and Rav Weiss believes that participation is not obligatory. Only wars fought against enemy armies qualify as milhamot mitzvah, not public dangers such as wild animals and diseases, to which only the laws of pikuach nefesh apply. Conclusion The halakhic decisions cited above, including perhaps even Radbaz, would seem to permit Sam's participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial, because a healthy individual may incur a small risk of death, comparable to the risk permitted for other acts of altruism such as kidney donation to achieve long-term immunity. In addition, the potential benefit to society is immeasurable, preventing the death and suffering of millions by halting the spread of this pandemic and ending the physical, psychological, and economic devastation of prolonged social distancing. Table 1 ... [Okay, I couldn't pass the summary table of who defines chayei sha'ah as how long to the digest. So, go check the URL for yourself! Skipping to the foonotes. -micha] ... [7] Shvut Yaakov 3:75, Pithei Teshuvah Yoreh De'ah 339:1, Gilyon Maharsha Yoreh De'ah 155:1, Binat Adam 73, 93, Binyan Tziyyon 111, Tiferet Yisrael Boaz, Yoma 8:3, Ahiezer 2:16:6, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58 and 3:36, and Tzitz Eliezer 4:13, all permit a hayei sha'ah to undergo risky medical treatment for cure. [8] Bleich, J.D., "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures," Tradition, 37, no.3 (2003): 76-100, [241]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23262430 . [9] Bleich, J.D. "Genetic Screening: Survey of Recent Halachic Periodical Literature," Tradition, 34, no.1 (2000): 63-87, [243]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23261641?seq=1 . [10] Verity, R. et al, "Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis," Lancet Infect. Dis. March 30, 2020, [245]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20 )30243-7/fulltext . [11] Bleich, J.D., "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures," Tradition, 37, no. 3 (2003): 94. [12] Kol Kitvei ha-Ramban, II, 38. [13] Miller, G., Joffe, S., "Limits to Research Risks," J. Med. Ethics 35, 445 (2009). [14] Resnik, D., "Limits on Risks for Healthy Volunteers in Biomedical Research," Theor. Med. Bioeth. 33, no. 2 (April, 2012): 137. [15] Verity, R. et al, "Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis," Lancet Infect. Dis. March 30, 2020, [251]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20 )30243-7/fulltext. [16] For a more detailed discussion of the definition of holeh lefanenu in Covid-19, see our earlier Lehrhaus essay, [253]https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/sharpening-the-definition-of-h oleh-lefanenu-the-diamond-princess-and-the-limits-of-quarantine/. [17] Rav Asher Weiss, "Experimental Treatments for Coronavirus," Mosaica Press (2020): 5-7. [18] Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De'ah, 210. [19] Hatam Sofer Yoreh De'ah, 336. From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Aug 20 14:43:28 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:43:28 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. Message-ID: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> << Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory...." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required." Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? >> See Igeros Moshe Even HaEzer Chelek 1 siman 48 and also (and particularly) Igeros Moshe Orech Chaim chelek 5 siman 37:12: ????? ???? ???? ????, ???? ?????. ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????. ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????. ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? (???? ?"? ?"?), ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????. ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????. The covering of the head before her husband is not necessary. Since the prohibition of uncovering the head is only in the marketplace. And even at the time of her period, there is no prohibition in her house before her husband and children. And there is a hidur to do like Kimchit (Yoma 47a) but we have not heard that there are any modest like this and even in the earlier generations. And in the time of the Tanaim the married women were not accustomed so except for individuals like Kimchit. Note specifically *but we have not heard that there are any modest like this, and even in the earlier generations*. A reasonably translation of this is surely: neither Rav Moshe's wife, nor his mother did this. <> I think it depends on your community. In a modern orthodox community in which most women are not covering their hair when they go out in a public place either, I suspect many if not most of the few women who do cover their hair when they go out absolutely rely on this position, and sometimes more lenient ones inside their homes (ie only cover their hair when they go out, as per the pshat of the mishna & gemora in Ketubos as referred to by Rav Moshe, and not when in their home regardless of who is there). In the Satmar community where they shave their heads, no, I am pretty sure no women are relying on this leniency. Within the communities on the spectrum between these two poles, I suspect it varies, getting more likely as you move towards the more "modern" end and less likely as you move towards the more charedi and certainly Chassidic end. But Rav Moshe never having heard of it in his and in previous generations is a notable data point. Regards Chana From mcohen at touchlogic.com Thu Aug 20 17:04:40 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:04:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. In-Reply-To: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> Thank you for your comments RCL wrote... Note specifically *but we have not heard that there are any modest like this, and even in the earlier generations*. A reasonably translation of this is surely: neither Rav Moshe's wife, nor his mother did this. True; although I would like to hear what the Feinstein children testify about their mothers hanhaga.. RCL wrote... Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the presence of your father, husband and son. R moshe as quoted only mentions husband/children. Where/how do we expand this to her brother? if it was bc of the simple pshat of the Mishna & gemora in Ketubos, then everyone should be ok inside (not just brother/family) and if the heter is based on inside - is uncovered hair allowed when swimming w husband/children alone (but outside)? (it is illogical to suggest that there is a continual obligation to cover her hair outside, even when a permissible situation such as alone or only with other women) Mc From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Aug 20 17:56:42 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 01:56:42 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. In-Reply-To: <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> References: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <000001d67755$efd44600$cf7cd200$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMC writes: <> Actually, this wasn't me, this was the yoetzet website you quoted. <> I assume that the reasoning behind the website's psak is based on with whom she is allowed to have yichud. Rav Moshe also doesn't specifically mention father, and yet the logic of the website including father as automatically on the same page as husband and children would seem to be driven by the unity of halacha regarding yichud. The yichud status of brothers is a bit more complex, as a certain level of yichud is allowed, but not completely, and hence they would seem the logical extension to question, and one could understand a view that, to the extent yichud is allowed, so should this be. >Mc Regards Chana From akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com Fri Aug 21 03:06:29 2020 From: akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 06:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > I'd love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - > machshava balma (random thought?) which has no halachic significance, > amira (specific oral articulation) which is completely binding and > amen/specific machshava (really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat > indeterminate (not welcome in a brisker world?) It seems to me that what you're really asking is: How/why does "Shomea k'oneh" work? Why is it that if I listen to someone say something, and we both have the correct "specific machshava", it is considered "as if" I had said it myself? And, just as importantly, to what *extent* is it considered as if I said it myself? As an illustration of this principle, R' Danny Schoemann cited the Kitzur in 127:3 > Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday > following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi > shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient... > Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, > you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself. I'd like to offer another illustration: If a person is saying Shemoneh Esreh when the shul is at Kaddish or Kedusha, Mechaber 104:7 writes that "He should be quiet and pay attention to the shatz, and it will be like he is answering." And the Mishne Berura 104:28 explains: "It will be like he is answering for the purpose of being thereby yotzay for Kaddish and Kedusha, but nevertheless it is not considered a hefsek." The halacha of Shomea K'oneh seems to allow us to have it both ways: We have *effectively* said something, yet not *actually* said anything. [Email #2. -micha] Addendum to what I wrote a few minutes ago: I know that Shomea K'Oneh is effective even when one does not actually respond "Amen". After all, a precise translation of the phrase would NOT be "listening is like answering Amen", but is rather "mere listening is like repeating it yourself." And yet, I seem to recall that there are some specific cases where the halacha differs depending on whether the person actually said "Amen" aloud, vs where he merely listened with all the correct intentions. Does anyone else know of such cases? Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 21:33:33 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:33:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: To prevent the spread of COVID see https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the shofar? Does it affect the sound? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Fri Aug 21 04:57:08 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:57:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21/8/20 12:33 am, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > To prevent the spread of COVID see > https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ > > What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the > shofar? Does it affect the sound? The OU says it doesn't appear to. https://www.ou.org/covid19/ 9. Shofar: An appropriate precaution during shofar blowing would be to place a surgical mask over the wider end of the shofar, as this does not appear to alter the sound of the shofar blast. Some may point the shofar out an open window or door, or near and towards the front wall or aron kodesh, facing away from the congregation. A single shofar should not be used by multiple people, and no barrier should be placed between the shofar and the mouth of the one blowing the shofar. Poskim have addressed when and how much to sound the shofar where the time in shul is seriously limited -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 12:07:00 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 15:07:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 07:33:33AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ > What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the > shofar? Does it affect the sound? As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does not affect the sound. But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer without specifying which kind(s) of masks they experimented with. The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else with sensitive hearing in the minyan, you need them to say they don't hear a difference if they personally wish to be yotzei.) But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use. Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices. Chodesh Tov! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but add justice, don't complain about heresy, Author: Widen Your Tent but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Sat Aug 22 17:47:42 2020 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 20:47:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:45 PM Micha Berger wrote: >> What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the >> shofar? Does it affect the sound? > As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does > not affect the sound. > But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer ... > The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound > of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else > with sensitive hearing in the minyan... > But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the > resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use. > Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from > the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices. I blow shofar for my shul. I have placed a surgical mask on the shofar and blew the shofar for the Rav both on and off without him looking at the shofar. He did not hear a real difference and I concurred. You can get a different sound from the shofar depending on how you place it on your lips and the amount of air used. Rav Shulman of YU / YI Midwood suggests blowing under your tallit or at a door without a mask on the shofar. From zev at sero.name Sun Aug 23 01:04:56 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 04:04:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does > not affect the sound. No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound, and is therefore permissible. I have no idea whether they're right, but this is what they say, and they know the halacha, so I assume they've done whatever is necessary to determine the metzius. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 06:11:31 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 09:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200823131130.GA6504@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 04:04:56AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does >> not affect the sound. > No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound... As per the rest of the post you're quoting: My comment was that they take it for granted that the mask(s) they tested with are indicative of the mask a member shul may be using. I would not. (Had I been in the OU, I would have been more specific about which brand mask.) But I'm not questioning their pesaq that listening on the other side of the mask is the original qol and not a "qol havarah". ("Hatoqeia lesokh habor, mishnah RH, on top of 27b in Vilna Bavli) I therefore isolated their halachic stance which from their depiction of the mtzi'us. Because I wanted to raise the question whether, even leshitasam, is a piano tuner or other person with sensitive hearing can hear a difference the rest of us can't, would he be yotzei. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect http://www.aishdas.org/asp painting? It's easy. Author: Widen Your Tent Make yourself perfect and then just paint - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 19:45:48 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 22:45:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault Message-ID: . At the Eglah Arufa, the zekeinim declare, "Our hands did not spill this blood! Our eyes did not see!" I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: > The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly > responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any > stranger from our city without food (so that he might have > been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or > without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected > on a dangerous road)." How can the zekeinim have been so sure? Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed? We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident? I considered the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas Orchim organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never will happen. (The three listed there, if I read it correctly, are Ben Sorer Umoreh, Ir Hanidachas, and a house getting tzaraas.) But it's *not* listed there, so I suppose it might have happened, or at least, *could* happen. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Sun Aug 23 06:35:32 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 13:35:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed? > > We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident? > > ??????- I?m not sure these are Mutually exclusive. Perhaps they are saying that the fault is not systemic and of course we have to see where we fell short and try to improve on it Kt Joel RichTHIS 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 zev at sero.name Sun Aug 23 07:39:22 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 10:39:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22/8/20 10:45 pm, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I considered?the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only > done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the > Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas?Orchim > organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever > occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been > listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never > will happen. The answer seems very simple. Not even the most thorough hachnassas orchim will ever prevent all murders, because most crimes are *not* committed out of need. The idea that the victim was actually a robber who was killed in legitimate self-defence, but in a further plot twist he only robbed out of desperate need, and had the city's elders done their job this would never have happened, is very far-fetched. The overwhelming likelihood is that he was an innocent person who was killed by a robber who was acting out of greed or sheer wickedness, as *most* robbers do. The Zekeinim are merely ruling out that far-fetched scenario in which they would bear some responsibility. And if you ask why, in that case, do they have to go through this whole rigmarole to rule it out, I suggest that it's so that this possibility is always on their minds, and they do their utmost to make sure that in the unlikely even that a body is ever found they should be *able* to make this declaration. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Aug 23 06:27:37 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:27:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Going swimming with your sister Message-ID: I always thought that brothers and sisters (even teenagers) could go mixed swimming privately just the immediate family because we assume that there are no hirhurim among immediate family members. However, I listened to the Headlines podcast where he interviewed an Israeli posek from Machon Puah who claimed that it was forbidden. Anyone have any sources? Piskei Halacha from modern poskim? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Aug 23 09:24:06 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:24:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee Message-ID: From https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-will-be-travelling-and-would-like-to-know-if-there-is-a-concern-of-bishul-akum-with-coffee-a-consumers-question I will be travelling and would like to know if there is a concern of bishul akum with coffee? (A consumer's question) OU Kosher Certification Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel. Raw coffee beans are inedible, a... See the above URL for more. From zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 24 09:27:09 2020 From: zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com (Zalman Alpert) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 12:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As > previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh > al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel. > Raw coffee beans are inedible, a... Great example of what DR Hayym Soloveitchik wrote about in his seminal essay Rupture and Reconstruction. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Aug 24 10:49:59 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 13:49:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200824174959.GF11765@aishdas.org> Bishul aku"m only applies to foods that are olim al shulchan melakhim. Qiddush can be made on chamar medinah. Seems to be a lower standard, when it comes to drinks, as the masses are unlikely to be pickier than their kings. The AhS (OC 272:12) ranks yayin and then sheikhar ahead of other drinks, but does include sweetened tea among the things one may make qiddush on. Similarly, IM OC 2:75. (Likely an indication of the price of sugar, RYME names tei matoq in particular as chamar medinah, not just writing "tei". Another measure of their poverty is his discussing their general use of raisin wine, as a reason why they were allowed to choose sheikhar even if wine was available. Meaning, I don't know if the AhS would allow this choice for us today.) But I am wondering benogei'ah to our original topic is whether it's possible to formulate a consistent shitah in which coffee can not be used for Qiddush and also cannot be used if bishul aku"m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message http://www.aishdas.org/asp that God is not yet discouraged with Author: Widen Your Tent humanity. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabindranath Tagore From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Aug 24 11:18:23 2020 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 14:18:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: I have an even better solution. Have the baal tekiah get a Covid test now and then a couple days before R?H and if both tests are negative and he is in good health, the chances of him having the virus is almost zero. From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 24 16:08:22 2020 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 7:02 PM Cantor Wolberg wrote: > Have the baal tekiah get a Covid test now and then a couple days before > R"H and if both tests are negative and he is in good health, the > chances of him having the virus is almost zero. It is possible to catch the virus after getting tested. Most tests take days to come back; by then you are contagious. Only if you test positive for antibodies, do you know that you have had the virus. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Aug 24 18:33:48 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:33:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee Message-ID: . According to the OU at the link posted, > Nonetheless, the Pri Chodosh writes that brewed coffee need > not be bishul Yisroel, since coffee is primarily water, and > water does not require bishul Yisroel. I have difficulty following that logic. Granted that if one looks at the ingredients, coffee is indeed primarily water. But why is that fact more relevant than the importance that society gives to this beverage? R' Micha Berger pointed out that Chamar Medinah "seems to be a lower standard" than Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim, and I'd agree. But I think it's irrelevant, because it is obvious to me that coffee is Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim. The dessert at a state dinner would not be s'mores and Slurpees; it would be elegant cakes and coffee. I suspect that for some reason (possibly the fact that Bishul Akum has little to do with kashrus and much to do with limiting our social contact with non-Jews), the rabbis went out of their way to find leniencies for it, and drinks is an example of such a leniency; I suspect that it never occurred to Chazal to extend the gezera beyond solid foods. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Aug 26 09:49:29 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:49:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Honoring Step Parents & More Message-ID: Please see https://vosizneias.com/2020/08/26/honoring-step-parents-more/ I found this to be a very interesting article YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 23:07:38 2020 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:07:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: It seems more reasonable to blow under the tallis without a mask. After a while, the tokea has to shake water out of the shofar. Slightly challenging with a mask on it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 23:11:27 2020 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:11:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Davening_at_home_on_Yamim_Nora=E2=80=99im?= Message-ID: This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. We will miss out on much of the ?experience? of the piyutim. Does anyone know of guidelines for what to do at home, such as part of chazarat haShatz? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 05:57:18 2020 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:57:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im Message-ID: RChaim Tafel wrote: > This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul > for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. > We will miss out on much of the "experience" of > the piyutim. Does anyone know of guidelines for > what to do at home, such as part of chazarat haShatz? Say them all except for the few you should only ever say when you are shatz, for example the netilot reshut, like all the misod chakhamim unevonim lines and such as the Ochila (which really, in my opinion, despite the popular tunes, the tzibbur should never say, as it is the netilat reshut for the shatz to insert the seder ha'avodah). Also skip obviously hineni he'ani mima'as, as it is for the shatz. Also skip the E-lohein vE-lohei Avoteinu heyei 'im pifiyot (which in my opinion the shatz shouldn't ever say, as it is a prayer for the shatz' success recited by the public). Finally, obviously whenever the cachzor calls for reciting 13 middot, depending on the poskim you follow, either skip or recite with te'amim. Otherwise I see no reason why you couldn'T beautifully sing your way through the entire machzor. But don't use one of these butchered machzorim, go for the real, unabbreviated, full and complete Rdelheim. (I am assuming you're ashkenazi, because Sefardi piyutim are altogether different). [Email #2. -micha] By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata Hu E-loheinu. In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. I am obviously totally tolerant, but it is still poetically wrong, objectively so. ;-) Ketiva vachatima tova, -- Mit freundlichen Gren, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Aug 28 06:14:15 2020 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 07:53 AM 8/28/2020, Chaim Tate wrote: >This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul for Rosh Hashanah and >Yom Kippur. >We will miss out on much of the ?experience? of the piyutim. >Does anyone know of guidelines for what to do at home, such as part of >chazarat haShatz? The YI of Midwood sent out an email saying that no piyyutim will be said during the davening on the Yomim Noraim. After all in many shuls the davening on Shabbos has been curtailed due to concerns about the virus. (no speeches and no singing). In some shuls people have been told to daven up to Baruch She'omer before coming to shul. So you won't be missing anything if other shuls follow the YI of Midwood! Personally I hope they do. Long davening can lead to the spread of the virus even with proper social distancing. Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said the it is better to daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more that 15 minutes , IIRC. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From crclbas at aol.com Fri Aug 28 06:49:54 2020 From: crclbas at aol.com (BenS) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:49:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Yomim Tovim References: <2007338277.6646156.1598622594128.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2007338277.6646156.1598622594128@mail.yahoo.com> The RCA And? ?YU have sent suggestions for shuls who want to skip certain piyutim. ASk your Rov for these guidelines. This can also be used for those who must daven at home. But be sure to arrange for Shofar on the second day. Minimum of 30 Kolos are needed. Shonoh Tovah!! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Aug 30 06:53:54 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 13:53:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos Message-ID: Please see https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-want-to-order-a-new-cell-phone-and-am-not-particular-when-it-will-arrive-am-i-permitted-to-place-an-order-online-if-the-website-indicates-the-package-will-arrive-on-saturday/?category&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shsh%20Ki%20Teitzei%205780%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=32470835&spUserID=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&spJobID=1764350018&spReportId=MTc2NDM1MDAxOAS2 YL I want to order a new cell phone and am not particular when it will arrive. Am I permitted to place an order online if the website indicates the package will arrive on Saturday? | OU Kosher Certification The issue here is whether arranging a delivery for Shabbos constitutes Amirah li?akum (instructing a non-Jew to perform melacha on Shabbos), which is prohibited. One might assume that this is analogous to handing a letter to a non-Jew on Friday and a... oukosher.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Aug 29 19:57:19 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 22:57:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d Message-ID: . In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? This may happen elsewhere too, but this case stands out because the form changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out to Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the contrast? If the third person was reasonable in the first part, why switch to the first person later on? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Aug 31 13:58:44 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-want-to-order-a-new-cell-phone-and-am-not-particular-when-it-will-arrive-am-i-permitted-to-place-an-order-online-if-the-website-indicates-the-package-will-arrive-on-saturday > One may not place an order if the delivery will definitely take place > on Shabbos. For example, one cannot send a package with UPS or FedEx > on Friday and select ?next day delivery?. Similarly, one cannot order > a refrigerator or washing machine from a store and arrange for a > Saturday delivery. I disagree with the author on this. Since they could choose to deliver after Shabbos and still fulfil their obligation, you are not telling them to deliver on Shabbos. In the winter this could actually happen. But even in the summer, when you can be fairly sure they won't do that, that's their choice not yours; if they did arrive after Shabbos you would have no right to complain, so you are not asking them to work on Shabbos. Only if they guarantee that "all deliveries will be made during business hours" or something similar would you not be allowed to order a Saturday delivery. And even then, if there's a space for delivery notes, and you write that late night delivery will be OK, that should be enough to permit it, even if you can be fairly sure it won't change anything. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Sep 1 06:53:18 2020 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:53:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > > From: Akiva Miller > > In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today > to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) > > Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > This may happen elsewhere too, I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the G-d of Avraham, etc. Therefore, the layman refers to the G-d of the Kohane, whose biblical role is to teach of Hashem and His Torah and therefore conceptualized Hashem more accurately. (I would have to concede that at first sight this does not work in cases where the person bringing the Bikkurim is actually greater than the Kohane. One can answer that it's a matter of *lo plug, *using a fixed formula for everyone at all times, following the normal situation. Or I would modify my explanation to say that the Kohane may not necessarily have a higher conceptualization but, through his avodah, a unique one not shared by others, which is relevant to the Bikkurim bringer in his role as such.) but this case stands out because the form > changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out to > Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the contrast?... > I think the above explanation works to explain this. In fact, note that the farmer is referring to the G-d of our "ancestors," meaning G-d as understood by the avos. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 12:29:01 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:29:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901192901.GA18013@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:53:18AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > This may happen elsewhere too, > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > G-d of Avraham, etc... I would have written something very similar, if RAM's email weren't still flagged "to do" in my email box when RZL's came in. However, I wouldn't have used the word "hasagah". I would have talked about the need to list "E-lokei Avraham", "E-lokai Yitzchaq" and "E-lokai Yaaqov" separately. To me, it speaks to the idea that the avos each had distinct relationships with the Borei. The "G-d of Avraham" was a different relationship than the G-d Yitzchaq "had" (kevayakhol). I don't know how RZL meant the word "hasagah", but to me it speaks to knowing *about* something. As in greater people have greater understandings of what G-d is. I would instead has said that "E-lokekha" is about the G-d the kohein has time to relate to more constantly than the farmer does. And it might also make the Vidui a statement about the farmer's relationship with G-d. Rather than who has more relationship, but about kidn of relationship. After all, the kohein may be learning, teaching and doing avodah all day, but the farmer teams up with G-d and relies on G-d to produce his crop. That's the point of the vidui -- that the G-d of Yetzias Mitzrayim gets credit for more day-to-day things my success. Something a kohein may only get more vicariously. So, he's saying to the kohein, "G-d is not only how you relate to Him from your ivory tower -- 'Your G-d', realize He also is intimately involved in my life and everyday life." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Interesting quote my signature generator chose from the perspective of being this close to the end of 5780. (Although we must remember, we are likely the first generation for whom life is normally so wonderful, this year qualified as a notably "bad" one.) -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 15:54:36 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901225436.GC18013@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:30:40PM -0400, Ken Bloom wrote: > Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one > should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in > finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. I'll give you "or elsewhere". Here's what I do. 1- During the year, I try to keep a cheshbon hanefesh. Laziness and momentum being what it is, that means that I usually have a journal of the decisions and reactions of a few 1 to 2 month stretches during the year. So, something I do early in Elul is review those, see patterns, what changed during the gaps... And trying to compensate changes because I was just focused on different things in different parts of the year. I then try to mentally fill in the gaps, as I can. And then I make a list of those issues in my reactions, decisions and actions that seem to have recurred a lot. It's often not the issues I was thinking I was failing at before I looked through notes. For that matter, even if you "just" keep a diary of your responses to the week -- not what happened to you, but how you responded to it -- from now to RH would give more insight to what habits and middos might really need the most attention. And to make that list, I try for a list of 2 to 4 items that both need the most attention and yet balanced with things I can actually tackle. For example, I have a long-running battle with ka'as. But it may not be the chink in the armor most ready to move. I might want to work on my frustration threshold, noting that my temper is very often the sum of frustration plus having someone I can pin blame on. And the plan has to be incremental. Not "starting YK I never will..." or "will always", but "starting YK I will take the first step to... which is..." For exmple, not expressing frustration in a given set of situations. Or maybe right after work for the first hour I'm home. Or whatever. 2- So much for correcting past mistakes. My other step is something Bank of America mislabeled Hoshin Planning that I adapted for life. https://www.aishdas.org/asp/hoshin-plan 2a- Find a Mission Statement At this point, I have a mission statement I aspire to live by. The first year, I didn't. I picked a quote from a sefer that at the time (and still) really moved me. Look for something from a seifer (including the siddur) that sums up life's mission for you. Is it about deveiqus? And if about deveiqus -- what does that mean to you? Knowledge (as per the Rambam)? Experiencing the Divine? Having a relationship with Hashem? Partnering with Him in His Work -- and what is His Work? Or maybe you see it in terms of sheleimus or temimus. But then, what is a person supposed to be, that you can talk about being more perfect at being one? Is it emulating Hashem? Or bein adam lachaveiro? Or maybe you're on another page altogether -- you see the Torah's mission for your life in terms of Jewish Nationhood, or humanity. And I realize many of those will yield different phrasing of nearly the same answer. But only nearly the same. There could be situations where connotations matter and have a nafqa mina lemaaseh. But in any case, it has to be moving and inspiring based on the way HQBH made you. In short -- a sentence or two about how you see what the Torah is telling you to be at this point in your life. After the first year, you tweak it and revise it as you change. 2b- Drilling down A Mission Statement is pointless if it doesn't have a way to influence action. In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for the firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could help reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division. His group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc... The idea is that there is an individual programmer like myself can be shown how my program fits in the team's goal, the group's goal and so on up to the firm's goal as written up in the Mission Statement. Similarly life's Mission Statement. We can divide it and subdivide it into managable lists. Maybe three bullet items as top-level goals to make the mission statament happen. And 2-4 each for each of those goals to make subgoals and so on. The idea is to get to the point that when you decide to go to the kitchen to get a cup of coffee, you have a way to relate that decision to the approach to living al pi haTorah that you framed for yourself. Let me give an example, taken from the above blog page. Since I wrote a book based on R Shimon's haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher, the quote would be no surprise. For that matter, ch. 2 is titled "Mission Statement" and is a collection of thoughts about the openining sentence of the haqdamah. See the first paragraph of the copy in Widen Your Tent sec 1.1, pg 45 of the book or pg 4 of https://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf#page=4 So, my orignal mission statement translates to (it is important to be in first person singular): [My] greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that [I] walk in His ways. Now I can divide that into three subgoals: - Having a connection to G-d - Internalizing His Will - Being a conduit of Hashem's Good into the lives of others. Internalizing His will, for example, was first subdivided into - Daily learning (which is what drives projects like AhS Yomi) - Daily Mussar work (like what I'm describing in this post), and - Regular in-depth learning -- chavrusos, shiurim, etc... Notice at this point I can start filling in things I can do this year. What learning? Which shiurim? As in part 1 -- which middos and what are the first months' exercises to chip away at them. (And buying a pretty new notebook. Somehow I do best at cheshbon hanefesh when I have a kewl new toy to do it with.) Hopefully, by month end when this "Spiritual Hoshin Plan" is done, I can pause in the middle of the workday and be able to say for myself that I'm putting up with this irate trader on the phone (I work for a Hedge Fund) so that I can pay for tuition (goal 3.2.4.2.5 or some-such), I can develop my personal creativity (as per 1.2... as being in the image of the Creator is something I view as a Mussar goal), etc.. And thereby give sanctity to an otherwise mundane (and stressfull) activity. And then every year things shift. Both in how I look at the world and in what are the pressing issues requiring more attention. Where parenting sits in the hierarchy was very different when I started than now that my youngest is a teenager. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. http://www.aishdas.org/asp It preserves health, promotes convalescence, Author: Widen Your Tent and helps us cope with adversity. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 12:46:48 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:46:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901194648.GB18013@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:45:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In > the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: >> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly >> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any >> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have >> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or >> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected >> on a dangerous road)." > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed > through unnoticed? Does it say that unnoticed strangers are included? The gemara (Sotah 46b) says (original at https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.9 ): Would it cross our minds that BD were murderers? Rather [they are saying]: He did not come to us and we dismissed him without food. We didn't see him and leave him without accompaniment. My translation matches the TMS's, minus their parenthetic comments. (Which I will now assume is the author's insertions, rather than part of the medrash.) The two phrases "lo ba leyadeinu" and "vera'inhu" seem to me to mean the BD are saying that the didn't neglect anyone they knew of. That not knowing the person was in town would be one of the reasons they wouldn't be guilty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the http://www.aishdas.org/asp better if possible, and of changing himself for Author: Widen Your Tent the better if necessary. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 05:00:31 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos Message-ID: . Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day away. I think it is assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. In contrast, if I request Monday delivery, that would be okay, even though I know that they'll be working for me on Shabbos, because it was their choice to work on Saturday rather than Sunday. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 07:11:20 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:11:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:00:31AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? Well, if there isn't a contracted delivery date of Shabbos, then it's their choice whether to do melakhah for you on Shabbos, Friday or Sunday. The package could sit around in a transfer facility for 25 hours while they deal with more urgent packages if it's not the delivery date. The choice is theirs. But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. I guess in the case of (eg) 3 day delivery, since it wouldn't violate the contract to get it there in 2, someone might argue that you aren't asking them to do the delivery on Shabbos. But I don't know if mutar alternatives matter even when they're implausible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Sep 2 11:46:49 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:46:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66cf413b-bbfa-c02e-885f-8a8bb7e152ce@sero.name> On 2/9/20 8:00 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day > away. I think it is?assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know > that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. I agree, *if* you know where it's coming from, and that it's not bich'dei sheyei'asu without working on Shabbos. But in the general case you don't know that, and I don't see why you have to worry about it just on spec. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 17:45:46 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:45:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said that it is better to daven a > little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that > selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more than 15 > minutes, IIRC. It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time that's been taken from them. Much more important is the speed at which it is said. If the length of time would remain constant, but pages were skipped so that the rest could be said carefully and attentively, THAT'S what Chazal meant by "better to daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Sep 2 13:49:48 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:49:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. ------------------------------- And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's Saturday delivery and you say nothing? KVCT 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 akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 18:08:38 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:08:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: . In the thread "Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im", R' Arie Folger wrote: > By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper > recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused > wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata > Hu E-loheinu. > > In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to > read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next > line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the > opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, > so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the > proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. I can see where some people might read the above, and feel that Rabbi Folger is being subjective and arbitrary in his choices of "proper" and "wrong". I had my brain all psyched up to spend the next hour or so writing a post to explain how he is objectively correct, and then I remembered that we covered this ground four years ago. Anyone who wants to learn more about how the recitation of these piyutim got messed up is strongly invited to review the thread "conservatism in davening" at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CONSERVATISM%20IN%20DAVENING Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mzeldman2 at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 00:33:32 2020 From: mzeldman2 at gmail.com (Moshe Zeldman) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 10:33:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If one should not say ?starting YK I will never...?, then how does that fit with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the vidui is saying ?and I will never do X again?? It sounds difficult to read into the Rambam that he means ?I?m still going to be doing X but I have a plan to eventually stop? On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 4:12 wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > > avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/ > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms > > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Hashem your G-d (Zvi Lampel) > > 2. Re: Hashem your G-d (Micha Berger) > > 3. Re: What to do in Elul? (Micha Berger) > > 4. Re: It's not our fault (Micha Berger) > > 5. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Akiva Miller) > > 6. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Micha Berger) > > 7. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Zev Sero) > > 8. Re: Davening at home on Yamim Noraim (Akiva Miller) > > 9. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Rich, Joel) > > 10. Re: conservatism in davening (Akiva Miller) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:53:18 -0400 > > From: Zvi Lampel > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , > > Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d > > Message-ID: > > < > CAPxEyabfrsb8kDLQzd7BTYpcZcQqOcyaDrjdZbyW8pD-K46QbA at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > > > > > > > > From: Akiva Miller > > > > > > In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today > > > to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) > > > > > > Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > > > > > This may happen elsewhere too, > > > > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher > > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers > > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > > G-d of Avraham, etc. Therefore, the layman refers to the G-d of the Kohane, > > whose biblical role is to teach of Hashem and His Torah and therefore > > conceptualized Hashem more accurately. > > > > (I would have to concede that at first sight this does not work in > > cases where the person bringing the Bikkurim is actually greater than the > > Kohane. One can answer that it's a matter of *lo plug, *using a fixed > > formula for everyone at all times, following the normal situation. Or I > > would modify my explanation to say that the Kohane may not necessarily have > > a higher conceptualization but, through his avodah, a unique one not shared > > by others, which is relevant to the Bikkurim bringer in his role as such.) > > > > but this case stands out because the form > > > changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out > to > > > Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the > contrast?... > > > > > > > I think the above explanation works to explain this. In fact, note that the > > farmer is referring to the G-d of our "ancestors," meaning G-d as > > understood by the avos. > > > > Zvi Lampel > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200901/89f8687e/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:29:01 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller , Zvi Lampel > > > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d > > Message-ID: <20200901192901.GA18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:53:18AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > > >> Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > > > > > This may happen elsewhere too, > > > > > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are > higher > > > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and > refers > > > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > > > G-d of Avraham, etc... > > > > I would have written something very similar, if RAM's email weren't still > > flagged "to do" in my email box when RZL's came in. > > > > However, I wouldn't have used the word "hasagah". I would have talked about > > the need to list "E-lokei Avraham", "E-lokai Yitzchaq" and "E-lokai Yaaqov" > > separately. > > > > To me, it speaks to the idea that the avos each had distinct relationships > > with the Borei. The "G-d of Avraham" was a different relationship than > > the G-d Yitzchaq "had" (kevayakhol). > > > > I don't know how RZL meant the word "hasagah", but to me it speaks to > knowing > > *about* something. As in greater people have greater understandings of what > > G-d is. > > > > I would instead has said that "E-lokekha" is about the G-d the kohein has > > time to relate to more constantly than the farmer does. > > > > And it might also make the Vidui a statement about the farmer's > > relationship with G-d. Rather than who has more relationship, but about > > kidn of relationship. > > > > After all, the kohein may be learning, teaching and doing avodah all > > day, but the farmer teams up with G-d and relies on G-d to produce his > > crop. That's the point of the vidui -- that the G-d of Yetzias Mitzrayim > > gets credit for more day-to-day things my success. Something a kohein > > may only get more vicariously. > > > > So, he's saying to the kohein, "G-d is not only how you relate to Him > > from your ivory tower -- 'Your G-d', realize He also is intimately > > involved in my life and everyday life." > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger If you're going through hell > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. > > Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > PS: Interesting quote my signature generator chose from the perspective > > of being this close to the end of 5780. (Although we must remember, we > > are likely the first generation for whom life is normally so wonderful, > > this year qualified as a notably "bad" one.) > > > > -- > > Micha Berger If you're going through hell > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. > > Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:54:36 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: avodah at aishdas.org, Ken Bloom > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? > > Message-ID: <20200901225436.GC18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:30:40PM -0400, Ken Bloom wrote: > > > Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what > one > > > should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in > > > finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. > > > > I'll give you "or elsewhere". Here's what I do. > > > > 1- > > > > During the year, I try to keep a cheshbon hanefesh. Laziness and momentum > > being what it is, that means that I usually have a journal of the decisions > > and reactions of a few 1 to 2 month stretches during the year. > > > > So, something I do early in Elul is review those, see patterns, what > > changed during the gaps... And trying to compensate changes because I > > was just focused on different things in different parts of the year. > > I then try to mentally fill in the gaps, as I can. And then I make a > > list of those issues in my reactions, decisions and actions that seem > > to have recurred a lot. It's often not the issues I was thinking I was > > failing at before I looked through notes. > > > > For that matter, even if you "just" keep a diary of your responses to the > > week -- not what happened to you, but how you responded to it -- from now > > to RH would give more insight to what habits and middos might really need > > the most attention. > > > > And to make that list, I try for a list of 2 to 4 items that both need the > > most attention and yet balanced with things I can actually tackle. For > > example, I have a long-running battle with ka'as. But it may not be > > the chink in the armor most ready to move. I might want to work on my > > frustration threshold, noting that my temper is very often the sum of > > frustration plus having someone I can pin blame on. > > > > And the plan has to be incremental. Not "starting YK I never will..." > > or "will always", but "starting YK I will take the first step to... > > which is..." > > > > For exmple, not expressing frustration in a given set of situations. > > Or maybe right after work for the first hour I'm home. Or whatever. > > > > 2- > > > > So much for correcting past mistakes. My other step is something > > Bank of America mislabeled Hoshin Planning that I adapted for life. > > > > https://www.aishdas.org/asp/hoshin-plan > > > > 2a- Find a Mission Statement > > > > At this point, I have a mission statement I aspire to live by. > > > > The first year, I didn't. I picked a quote from a sefer that at the time > > (and still) really moved me. Look for something from a seifer (including > > the siddur) that sums up life's mission for you. Is it about deveiqus? > > And if about deveiqus -- what does that mean to you? Knowledge (as per > > the Rambam)? Experiencing the Divine? Having a relationship with Hashem? > > Partnering with Him in His Work -- and what is His Work? Or maybe you see > > it in terms of sheleimus or temimus. But then, what is a person supposed > > to be, that you can talk about being more perfect at being one? Is it > > emulating Hashem? Or bein adam lachaveiro? Or maybe you're on another > > page altogether -- you see the Torah's mission for your life in terms > > of Jewish Nationhood, or humanity. > > > > And I realize many of those will yield different phrasing of nearly the > same > > answer. But only nearly the same. There could be situations where > connotations > > matter and have a nafqa mina lemaaseh. But in any case, it has to be moving > > and inspiring based on the way HQBH made you. > > > > In short -- a sentence or two about how you see what the Torah is telling > > you to be at this point in your life. > > > > After the first year, you tweak it and revise it as you change. > > > > 2b- Drilling down > > > > A Mission Statement is pointless if it doesn't have a way to influence > > action. > > > > In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for the > > firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could help > > reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division. His > > group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc... The idea is that > > there is an individual programmer like myself can be shown how my program > > fits in the team's goal, the group's goal and so on up to the firm's goal > > as written up in the Mission Statement. > > > > Similarly life's Mission Statement. We can divide it and subdivide it > > into managable lists. Maybe three bullet items as top-level goals to > > make the mission statament happen. And 2-4 each for each of those > > goals to make subgoals and so on. > > > > The idea is to get to the point that when you decide to go to the kitchen > > to get a cup of coffee, you have a way to relate that decision to the > > approach to living al pi haTorah that you framed for yourself. > > > > Let me give an example, taken from the above blog page. > > > > Since I wrote a book based on R Shimon's haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher, > > the quote would be no surprise. For that matter, ch. 2 is titled > > "Mission Statement" and is a collection of thoughts about the > > openining sentence of the haqdamah. See the first paragraph of > > the copy in Widen Your Tent sec 1.1, pg 45 of the book or pg 4 of > > https://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf#page=4 > > > > So, my orignal mission statement translates to (it is important to > > be in first person singular): > > [My] greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals > > and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator > > (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according > > to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the > > creations. So too His Will is that [I] walk in His ways. > > > > Now I can divide that into three subgoals: > > - Having a connection to G-d > > - Internalizing His Will > > - Being a conduit of Hashem's Good into the lives of others. > > > > Internalizing His will, for example, was first subdivided into > > - Daily learning (which is what drives projects like AhS Yomi) > > - Daily Mussar work (like what I'm describing in this post), and > > - Regular in-depth learning -- chavrusos, shiurim, etc... > > > > Notice at this point I can start filling in things I can do this year. > > What learning? Which shiurim? As in part 1 -- which middos and what are > > the first months' exercises to chip away at them. (And buying a pretty > > new notebook. Somehow I do best at cheshbon hanefesh when I have a > > kewl new toy to do it with.) > > > > Hopefully, by month end when this "Spiritual Hoshin Plan" is done, I > > can pause in the middle of the workday and be able to say for myself > > that I'm putting up with this irate trader on the phone (I work for a > > Hedge Fund) so that I can pay for tuition (goal 3.2.4.2.5 or some-such), > > I can develop my personal creativity (as per 1.2... as being in the > > image of the Creator is something I view as a Mussar goal), etc.. And > > thereby give sanctity to an otherwise mundane (and stressfull) activity. > > > > And then every year things shift. Both in how I look at the world and in > > what are the pressing issues requiring more attention. Where parenting > > sits in the hierarchy was very different when I started than now that my > > youngest is a teenager. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable > treasure. > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp It preserves health, promotes convalescence, > > Author: Widen Your Tent and helps us cope with adversity. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of > Mishlei" > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:46:48 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] It's not our fault > > Message-ID: <20200901194648.GB18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:45:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > > > I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In > > > the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: > > > > >> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly > > >> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any > > >> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have > > >> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or > > >> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected > > >> on a dangerous road)." > > > > > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > > > > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have > passed > > > through unnoticed? > > > > Does it say that unnoticed strangers are included? > > > > The gemara (Sotah 46b) says (original at > https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.9 ): > > Would it cross our minds that BD were murderers? > > > > Rather [they are saying]: He did not come to us and we dismissed him > > without food. We didn't see him and leave him without accompaniment. > > > > My translation matches the TMS's, minus their parenthetic comments. (Which > > I will now assume is the author's insertions, rather than part of the > > medrash.) > > > > The two phrases "lo ba leyadeinu" and "vera'inhu" seem to me to mean > > the BD are saying that the didn't neglect anyone they knew of. That not > > knowing the person was in town would be one of the reasons they wouldn't > > be guilty. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp better if possible, and of changing himself > for > > Author: Widen Your Tent the better if necessary. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Victor Frankl, Man's search for > Meaning > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:31 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: > > KNCNNA at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on > > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? > > > > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day away. I > > think it is assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know that it won't > > be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. In contrast, > > if I request Monday delivery, that would be okay, even though I know that > > they'll be working for me on Shabbos, because it was their choice to work > > on Saturday rather than Sunday. > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/5837fd1d/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:11:20 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: <20200902141120.GA27483 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:00:31AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus > on > > > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? > > > > Well, if there isn't a contracted delivery date of Shabbos, then it's > > their choice whether to do melakhah for you on Shabbos, Friday or Sunday. > > The package could sit around in a transfer facility for 25 hours while > > they deal with more urgent packages if it's not the delivery date. The > > choice is theirs. > > > > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > > > > I guess in the case of (eg) 3 day delivery, since it wouldn't violate the > > contract to get it there in 2, someone might argue that you aren't > > asking them to do the delivery on Shabbos. But I don't know if mutar > > alternatives matter even when they're implausible. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his > fellow > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew > worries > > Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's > stomach. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:46:49 -0400 > > From: Zev Sero > > To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: <66cf413b-bbfa-c02e-885f-8a8bb7e152ce at sero.name> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > > On 2/9/20 8:00 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day > > > away. I think it is?assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know > > > that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during > Shabbos. > > > > I agree, *if* you know where it's coming from, and that it's not > > bich'dei sheyei'asu without working on Shabbos. But in the general case > > you don't know that, and I don't see why you have to worry about it just > > on spec. > > > > -- > > Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer > > zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:45:46 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim > > Message-ID: > > < > CABiM0c+1patT7b5FcLCxbn8wuZsCXzmoGyC846J6cQxP-9JJjQ at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > > > > > Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said that it is better to daven a > > > little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that > > > selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more than 15 > > > minutes, IIRC. > > > > It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing > > to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better > > than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time > > that's been taken from them. > > > > Much more important is the speed at which it is said. If the length of time > > would remain constant, but pages were skipped so that the rest could be > > said carefully and attentively, THAT'S what Chazal meant by "better to > > daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without." > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/455f462f/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 9 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:49:48 +0000 > > From: "Rich, Joel" > > To: 'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group' > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: > > < > CY4PR02MB25993558995FE1F789868116BF2F0 at CY4PR02MB2599.namprd02.prod.outlook.com > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > > ------------------------------- > > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's > Saturday delivery and you say nothing? > > KVCT > > 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 10 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:08:38 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] conservatism in davening > > Message-ID: > > < > CABiM0cJ4esqYBS9zWh5bP1UnGZYs67zrTwZ+HeYOcVVLWc9ULw at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > In the thread "Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im", R' Arie Folger wrote: > > > > > By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper > > > recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused > > > wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata > > > Hu E-loheinu. > > > > > > In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to > > > read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next > > > line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the > > > opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, > > > so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the > > > proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. > > > > I can see where some people might read the above, and feel that Rabbi > > Folger is being subjective and arbitrary in his choices of "proper" and > > "wrong". I had my brain all psyched up to spend the next hour or so writing > > a post to explain how he is objectively correct, and then I remembered that > > we covered this ground four years ago. > > > > Anyone who wants to learn more about how the recitation of these piyutim > > got messed up is strongly invited to review the thread "conservatism in > > davening" at > > > https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CONSERVATISM%20IN%20DAVENING > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/fc503c3c/attachment.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Avodah mailing list > > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah > > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 38, Issue 72 > > ************************************** > > -- ----------------------------- Moshe Zeldman Israel: (+972) 54 256 2888 US/Canada: 647 580 8965 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 18:34:46 2020 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:34:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d Message-ID: In Avodah V38n72, RZL noted: > This may happen elsewhere too < The first example which came into my mind when I saw RAMiller's message was a phrase in the P'Zachor *haftara* -- see I Sam 15:15. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 3 09:09:03 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 12:09:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <15e6bfd6-3399-dbb5-a721-6671f0b31da4@sero.name> On 2/9/20 4:49 pm, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > ------------------------------- > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's Saturday delivery and you say nothing? That should be fine. It's their decision, not yours. You told them you don't mind if they deliver it on Sunday. It's the same as dropping something off at the cleaners right before Shabbos and telling them you want it by 6 AM on Sunday. Since they could work on it all night Motzei Shabbos, you're fine, even though you know they will choose not to. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 18:13:02 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 21:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul Message-ID: . R' Moshe Zeldman asked: > If one should not say "starting YK I will never...", then how > does that fit with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the > vidui is saying "and I will never do X again"? > It sounds difficult to read into the Rambam that he means "I'm > still going to be doing X but I have a plan to eventually stop" Yes, the Rambam does say that at the beginning of Perek 1. But Perek 2 is all about less-than-ideal sorts of teshuva. I concede that I didn't notice the Rambam explicitly mentioning this weaning as a legitimate less-than-ideal form of teshuva. But still, it is hard for me to imagine that he would invalidate someone who said, "I did it, and I should not have done it, and I feel sorry that I did it, and in the future I will do it less than I used to." And even if the Rambam *would* say that such a person has *not* done teshuva, remember the context in which this idea was suggested: a person who has repeatedly found this particular aveira unusually difficult to conquer. Imagine further, that this person succeeds in a slow elimination of this aveira, and after many years - decades perhaps - he has finally conquered it. Such a person would certainly be no less of a Baal Teshuva than the one who the Rambam described in the middle section of halacha 2:1: "Even if he didn't do teshuva until his elderly days, and when it was impossible for his to do what he used to do, even though it's not an excellent teshuva, it still helps him, and he is a Baal Teshuva." Please note that this person described by the Rambam did not even begin regretting his sins until he was too old to do them. That's NOT the case we're discussing. We're discussing someone who still has to battle the yetzer hara. I can't help but wonder if this person, who executed a long, slow, but ultimately successful plan, might get the mitzva of Teshuva retroactively, to the beginning of that plan, maybe even according to the Rambam. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 10:43:29 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:43:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200904174329.GB3095@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:33:32AM +0300, Moshe Zeldman via Avodah wrote: > If one should not say "starting YK I will never...", then how does that fit > with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the vidui is saying "and I > will never do X again"? I'm going to shift topics a little from what the Rambam says should be done to what experience (and 20th cent Mussar sefarim) has shown does work. Lots of diets I promised myself I would start right after the chagim never happened. So, I don't think there is much commitment in "starting YK I will never..." Maybe we should be following the incremental approach... Promising now to take steps that by Yom Kippur I would be up to not doing X again, and by Chanukah not doing X-1, and by Pesach, X-2, and by next YK... Again, not claiming you can read that into the Rambam. But it does fit the Rambam's requirements for vidui while still having more chance of success than expecitng to be able to permanently change habits and character on a dime. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. http://www.aishdas.org/asp The purpose of life Author: Widen Your Tent is to give it away. -- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -- Pablo Picasso From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 10:58:49 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:58:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200904175849.GC3095@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:45:46PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing > to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better > than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time > that's been taken from them. Speaking specifically of "echad hamarbeh. ve'echad hamam'it..." and not trying to fit more services into the same number of rooms in the same morning or other pandemic issues... The idea is usually invoked for those of us who abbreviate Pesuqei deZimra in order to say fewer peraqim of Tehillim in the same time the minyan is saying more of them. Not to save time, but to spend more thought and similar time on fewer actions (in this case, speech). BUT... The past century has seen a HUGE shrinkage (sorry for the oxymoron) in attention spans. So, the more likely alternative of 15 minutes of rushed mumbeling may be better than an hour of mumbling while one's mind wanders. For many people, even on Yamim Noraim. May even have a net minus in the minimal kavanah of a rushed mumble. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] http://www.aishdas.org/asp isn't complete with being careful in the laws Author: Widen Your Tent of Passover. One must also be very careful in - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:48:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 14:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20200904184852.GD3095@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:49:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >> But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after >> hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's > Saturday delivery and you say nothing? Can it depend on who makes the decision? What if I ask one set of people to deliver my package, but another set of people make it impossible for them to get into the warehouse / vehicle on Sunday? And if I could guess as much that even if they wanted to deliver on Sunday it's not really in their power to do so? :-)BBii! -Micha From seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:25 2020 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2020 10:31:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avos - Shepherds Message-ID: The Avos ? Forefathers - (and Moshe Rabbeinu and Dovid HaMelech and others) were shepherds. Did they eat sheep? The few times when eating from the flock is mentioned, it seems to be goats (eg, Rivka feeding Yitzchak). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Sep 6 13:24:42 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:24:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Use a Public Grill? Message-ID: >From https://www.kosher.com/lifestyle/can-one-use-a-public-grill-1259 [https://www.kosher.com/resized/open_graph/s/h/shutterstock_442567648_banner.jpg] Can One Use a Public Grill? | Lifestyle | Kosher.com Shailah of the Week by Rabbi Zvi Nussbaum Rabbinic Coordinator, Kosher Hotline Administrator for the Orthodox Union Since a campground grill has been used to cook non-kosher foods (non-kosher meats and fish...), it may not be used unless it is properly kashered. The only way to kasher a gr... www.kosher.com Since a campground grill has been used to cook non-kosher foods (non-kosher meats and fish...), it may not be used unless it is properly kashered. The only way to kasher a grill top is with libun gamur (heating until the entire surface of the grill top rack becomes red hot). This can be accomplished by submerging the surface of the grill into burning charcoal. Even if the grill was used within the past 24 hours to cook non-kosher, and even if the grill had not been cleaned, it may still be kashered in this manner, since the intense heat will burn up all non-kosher residue and taste. There is no need to tovel the grill (immerse the grill in a mikvah), since it does not belong to you. It is owned by the park. Instead of kashering the grill, an easier option is to bring along your own grill top and a couple of bricks. If the non-kosher grill can be lifted out of the way, the kosher grill may be put in its place, balanced on the bricks. If you purchase a new grill top, it must be toveled before it is used. A third option is to double wrap your food with two layers of aluminum foil. Once properly wrapped, they may be placed directly on the non-kosher grill. In this case, it is better to clean the grill top first, or let the coals burn off the grease, before placing the double-wrapped food on top. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Sep 6 13:49:28 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:49:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pas Yisroel Message-ID: See https://www.crcweb.org/Pas%20Yisroel%20article%20.pdf Pas Yisroel during Aseres Y?mei Teshuvah Pas Yisroel By: Rabbi Dovid Cohen Administrative Rabbinic Coordinator, cRc Background In the times of the Mishnah, and possible even earlier, Chazal www.crcweb.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Sep 7 04:02:28 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:02:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] 10PM Slichot Message-ID: Anyone know why R' Moshe in O"C 2:105 didn't suggest pre-shacharit slichot rather than 10Pm slichot as a stand in for chatzot (midnight) slichot on the first night of slichot when there was a clear and present danger? Kvct 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 michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 11:26:57 2020 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:26:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another example, seen via this week's ShMOT: Deu 31 :26. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolberg at yebo.co.za Mon Sep 7 03:41:23 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 12:41:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 Message-ID: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> "And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. And so paskened the Geonei Olam for about [the last] eighty years. And this is the essential halocha." I have several questions about this. 1. Surely the use of Yiddish translations was very common and accepted? 2. Is this a response to the Reform use of German translations? 3. While the translation of the Shema might be problematic, translation of shemoneh esrei and brochas is surely not the same issue? From zev at sero.name Tue Sep 8 08:01:13 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 11:01:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10PM Slichot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0c0a2053-cf70-2689-d048-d3d3a7c9eab4@sero.name> On 7/9/20 7:02 am, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Anyone know why R? Moshe in O?C 2:105 didn?t suggest pre-shacharit > slichot rather than 10Pm slichot as a stand in for chatzot (midnight) > slichot on the first night of slichot when there was a clear and present > danger? The teshuva isn't about the first night, it's about all the days of selichos, and the situation is that it's impossible to do it either at midnight *or* before dawn. He takes it for granted that selichos must be said at night, Kumi Roni Valayla, and at an Eis Ratzon, which means any time between midnight and dawn, and says the minhag to do it at the end of the night, before dawn, is for convenience. So he reluctantly allows it after the first third of the night, with the proviso that it must be publicised that this is a hora'as sha'ah. Why doesn't he even consider doing it in the morning after daylight? I can think of two possibilities: Perhaps because selichos must be at night; or perhaps because people have to go to work and can't fit selichos in at their normal time for shacharis, and it's already posited in the question that for some reason they can't start earlier. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781 zev at sero.name "May this year and its curses end May a new year and its blessings begin" From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 11:43:48 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 14:43:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dates from Ancient Genes and Koseves Message-ID: <20200908184348.GA9440@aishdas.org> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/07/world/middleeast/israel-judean-dates-agriculture.html KETURA, Israel The plump, golden-brown dates hanging in a bunch just above the sandy soil were finally ready to pick. They had been slowly ripening in the desert heat for months. But the young tree on which they grew had a much more ancient history sprouting from a 2,000-year-old seed retrieved from an archaeological site in the Judean wilderness. Quick, can someone get the volume of these things before Yom Kippur? Kidding aside.... Do people think that the shiur of a kekoseves should be re-assessed, if necessary, based on this newly available data? RYBS, and his version of R Chaim's argument against Radziner tekheiles (or his argument against assuming orez = rice) would imply we don't. Halakhah can only be founded upon mesorah, not scientific data. My summary of that section of Nefesh haRav is at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n073.shtml#12 Anyone want to provide meqoros for other opinions? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... http://www.aishdas.org/asp ... but you're the pilot. Author: Widen Your Tent - R' Zelig Pliskin - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Sep 8 17:48:57 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 00:48:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] directed donations Message-ID: Question someone I know got concerning a contribution: Do you want your donation to the shul to be ?????? ???? ??? Response: I?d go with anonymous and pray that hkbh directs his accountant to allocate it to where it?s most needed. As a matter fact maybe that should be the inscription Thoughts? Kvct 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 llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 9 05:50:41 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 12:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 565:5) writes that the ?Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim? (thirteen attributes of mercy, Shemos 34:6-7) may not be recited unless there is a minyan. When these pesukim are recited in the context of prayer, they have the elevated status of a ?davar she?bikedusha,? like Kaddish or Kedusha, that may only be said in the presence of a minyan. The Mishnah Berurah (581:4) writes that Selichos that mention the Yud Gimmel Middos may be said, provided that those lines are skipped. If one prefers to say the Yud Gimmel Middos, he may do so if he recites them with the trop (cantillation) used for krias haTorah, as that indicates that it is not being recited as a tefillah (M?B 565:12). Mishnah Berurah also adds that any Selichos that are written in Aramaic should be skipped. The basis for this is the Gemara (Sotah 33a), in which Rebbi Yochanan states that angels do not deliver prayers that were recited in Aramaic, but when praying with a minyan one does not need the assistance of angels. Hashem?s presence is in the midst of the minyan and there is no need for angelic intervention. The Mishnah Berurah concludes, if there is no minyan at the beginning of Selichos, Kaddish is not said after Ashrei. Instead, the group should begin reciting Selichos. When the tenth man arrives, the congregation should recite three pesukim together, recite Kaddish and then continue from where they left off. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Sep 10 05:44:42 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:44:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When to Say Se;lichos Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. What is preferable? To wake up early and recite Selichos before dawn (a.k.a. alos hashachar, which is 72 minutes before sunrise), or to stay up late and recite Selichos after chatzos (midnight)? What about saying selichos after alos or after neitz hachama (sunrise)? A. Rav Yitzchak Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Yoma 22a) writes that the preferred time to recite Selichos is before dawn. This can be inferred from the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 3:4) who writes that it is customay to awake at night and recite Selichos until the morning. In addition, Mishnah Berurah (581:1) writes that the end of the night is an eis rotzon (a propitious time when G-d is receptive to prayer), implying that the early mornoing is the most appropriate time for Selichos. Finally, the She?arim Metzuyanim B?Halacah (Yoma 22a) notes that Selichos recited in the early morning is more effective, since it is recited through greater sacrifice; it is more difficult to wake up early than to stay up late. May Selichos be rected after sunrise? Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Divrei Si?ach, vol. 134) holds that it is preferable to recite Selichos after Chatzos than to recite Selichos later in the day after sunrise. On the otherhand, Rav Elyashav and Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach take an oposite opinion and write that it is better to recite Selichos in the daytime (even after sunrise) than to say it after chatzos (quoted in MB Dirshu MB, 581:1). Similiary, the Aruch Hashulchan writes that it has been customary to say selichos in the morning after sunrise for many generations. On the other hand, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt?l (Igros Moshe OC, 2:105) writes that kabalistically, the period after chatzos is as much an eis ratzon as early dawn, and for this reason, for many generations, it has been customary to recite Selichos at night after chatzos. This is also the opinion of the Minchas Elazar (the previous Munkatcher Rebbi), as recorded in Divrei Torah (141:76). Even those who recomend saying selichos in early morning before sunrise agree that on the first night of Selichos, on Motzei Shabbos, it is preferable to recite Selichos after Chatzos. This is because we wish to combine the merit of Shabbos together with the first Selichos. Therefore, we begin Selichos after Chatzos, and do not wait for the early morning (Chashukei Chemed, ibid.). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 15:12:12 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:12:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 In-Reply-To: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> References: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> Message-ID: <20200910221212.GB12180@aishdas.org> Sidenote: This se'if was recently studied by Arukh haShulchan Yomi. If you want to join us learning AhS Yomi, see the tools -- calendar, text, RYGB's YouTube playlist -- at http://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi ! AhS Yomi covers OC and the applicable portions of YD. (From egg spots to aveilus.) On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:41:23PM +0200, wolberg via Avodah wrote: >> And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the Shema and >> Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. >> And so paskened the Geonei Olam for about [the last] eighty years. And >> this is the essential halocha." ... > 1. Surely the use of Yiddish translations was very common and accepted? For women, yes. In fact, there is a script called Vaibrteitch because translations were in general considered for women. ("Women's Translation". "Teitch" evolved from the language name "Deutch".) Vaibrteitch is different than Rashi script. See examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaybertaytsh > 2. Is this a response to the Reform use of German translations? Likely. That bit about how they used to know Hebrew better is suspiciously post-facto sounding. Maybe when translating to another Semitic language, or to Greek using a millenia old tradition of Hebrew to Greek equivalences, we could have done better than we can to English. However, 600 years ago, translating to German, French or Spanish... No matter how well you know Hebrew, there is simply no close parallel to translate words to. A personal favorite when teaching Mussar is "yir'ah". Yir'ah is a range from awe to fear. Maybe the closest is "awareness of the magnitude of what you're facing" -- whether with admiration (awe) or thinking about risk (fear) or in another way. But because we are thinking "awe or fear" instead of a single concept, we cannot think about the middah of yir'as Shamayim in a fully authentic way. It's not two thing with an "or", or with a second thought about how they're related. It's a single territory that should be part of our gut's language about how we're feeling at a given point in time. In any case, it is true that real translation is impossible. I would faster *guess* that a machloqes about how close a translation may be got closed because the response to Reform forced our hand to choose one shitah over the other. > 3. While the translation of the Shema might be problematic, translation > of shemoneh esrei and brochas is surely not the same issue? Well, we cannot translation "Barukh Atah Hashem", at least not "barukh" or "Hashem" in any precise way. So, maybe not. I am not sure people really know what they mean when they say "blessed". But what is Barukh? - Source of increase - Maximally increased - May You -- in the form of the expression of Your Will in this world -- be incresed - An intentional ambiguity of all of the above? And sheim havayah pronounced as Adnus... - The Atemporal - The All-Compassionate - The Transcendent - The L-rd of All Etc... I would faster think the baqashos would be okay more than berakhos in general. Or maybe the body of the berakhah until the chasimah. As long as the translation is close enough so that it opens and wraps up with me'ein hachasimah. But lemaaseh, the AhS says that's not what "we hold". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. http://www.aishdas.org/asp - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:50:27 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Torah Musings] Why Did the Holocaust Happen Message-ID: <20200911175027.GA23887@aishdas.org> A survey by R Gil Student. https://www.torahmusings.com/2020/09/why-did-the-holocaust-happen/ (And a couple of the comments on his post.) :-)BBii! -Micha Torah Musing Why Did the Holocaust Happen? Posted by: Gil Student Posts Sep 7, 2020 As I reviewed the weekly Torah reading for this past Shabbos, which includes the tochekhah (Deut. 28), I was taken back to my teenage years, reading it one Saturday or Sunday afternoon and seeing Jewish history in it. To a non-religious Jewish teenager in the 1980's who grew up among survivors, the question of God in the Holocaust was not a faith issue that could be ignored. Reading the biblical text with minimal commentary (I think I used S.L. Gordon's secular commentary), I saw a prophecy that sin would lead to the kind of inhuman devastation seen in the Holocaust, a prediction that was fulfilled thousands of years later. To me, the Holocaust was not an impediment to faith but a convincing proof of Judaism's truth claims. Not everyone sees it that way. Many are offended by the very claim that the Holocaust was a divine punishment, although often due to objections that miss important discussions in traditional Jewish literature which we will mention briefly below. The issues are so sensitive, and during the 1970's and 1980's in particular the denominational conflicts were so strong, that unnecessarily forceful rhetoric turned an issue of faith into a weapon. In my opinion, a legitimate theological view has been dismissed due to heightened sensitivities and denominational politics. I. Five Approaches to the Holocaust Modern Orthodoxy has developed two main theologies of the Holocaust: 1) Hester Panim - God hid His face, turned away, and let mankind unleash wanton violence. R. Norman Lamm takes this approach in his [51]"The Face of God: Thoughts of the Holocaust". It is important to note that God hides His face (Deut. 31:17) due to Jewish sins (ibid., 16). (Some claim that brief mentions of hester panim by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik in his Kol Dodi Dofek constitute his adoption of this approach, but see R. Reuven Ziegler, Majesty and Humility, p. 277 n. 4, where he dismisses this interpretation.) 2) Free Will - God allows mankind the free will to sin, which includes the ability to murder and torture others. R. Eliezer Berkovits advocates this approach in his Faith After the Holocaust. The alternative approaches generally discussed are: 3) Anti-Zionism - The Satmar Rebbe's argument that Zionism led to the Holocaust, in his [52]Al Ha-Ge'ulah Ve-Al Ha-Temurah. 4) Zionism - The Religious Zionist argument that the Holocaust paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel. This view is attributed to R. Zvi Yehudah Kook (see Aviezer Ravitzky, Messianism, Zionism and Jewish Religious Radicalism, pp. 126-128). 5) Secularization - R. Avigdor Miller popularized the view that the assimilation and secularization of Jews in the 150 years prior to the Holocaust resulted in this punishment. R. Norman Lamm quotes this from R. Miller's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 278-279) and you can find quotes on the subject by searching [53]TorasAvigdor.org for the word "Holocaust". (A reader informed me that R. Miller has a book on the subject was posthumously published -- [54]A Divine Madness: Rabbi Avigdor Miller's Defense of Hashem in the Matter of the Holocaust.) II. The Slabodka Holocaust Theology I would like to explore here the approach of a Holocaust victim, Rav Avraham Grodzinski, the mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva who perished in 1944. I will be blending in another important view of Rav Grodzinski, along with his son-in-law Rav Shlomo Wolbe's presentation of Rav Grodzinski's approach in Rav Wolbe's (anonymously published) book of outreach speeches given in the wake of the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars (originally published as Bein Sheshes Le-Asor, later republished as Olam Ha-Yedidus). Rav Grodzinski's approach is most similar to that of Rav Miller, which is not surprising since the latter studied in the Slabodka yeshiva. However, I am not sure that Rav Miller developed it in the same way as Rav Grodzinski and he certainly did not present it in the same sensitive way as Rav Wolbe. [55]Rav Avraham Grodzinski succeeded Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel ("The Alter") as mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva, when the latter moved to Israel and established a branch of the yeshiva in Chevron. Rav Grodzinski (a brother-in-law of Rav Ya'akov Kamenetsky) stayed in Europe to the end, suffering a martyr's death in the Kovno Ghetto in 1944. He sent his writings to his students in Israel, who together with [56]his surviving sons published them in 1963 as Toras Avraham, a brilliant book of profound Mussar thought presented in the style of Talmudic thinking. [57]Rav Shlomo Wolbe first published Bein Sheshes Le-Asor anonymously in 1975, although it is clearly in his style and was posthumously republished by the foundation to publish his writings. The book consists mainly of his outreach lectures throughout Israel, spurred by the renewed interest in Israel awakened by the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War. The chapter on the Holocaust, however, was prepared for a class at the Bais Ya'akov of Jerusalem (commonly known as BJJ). I assume that Rav Wolbe included this chapter because he believes that this issue is important to those seeking to grow in faith. Rav Wolbe begins with a story emphasizing the importance of finding meaning in your suffering. It is obvious, he says, that we must help others by alleviating their suffering in any way possible. However, faith teaches us that there is meaning in suffering, a lesson to be learned. Rav Wolbe continues that even when God hides His face from us, there are no accidents. Therefore we must examine our lives to see what God wants from us. This is true not just for individuals but for nations as a whole. Throughout, Rav Wolbe quotes mainly biblical verses to prove his points, although I can think of many Talmudic passages that would do likewise. The believer is strengthened from the fact that destruction and suffering do not occur by happenstance but rather come guided by divine providence after ample warning. The traditional Jewish texts of the Bible, Talmud and Midrash warn us of the horrific consequences of sin. Rav Wolbe highlights in particular the language of the Gemara (Kesubos 111a), while sidestepping the specific Talmudic context, of "If not, I (God) will abandon your flesh like the gazelles and like the hinds of the field." Due to sin, Jewish flesh will be hunted like animals. Nobody, Rav Wolbe continues, is allowed to decide for what reason the Holocaust happened to us unless he personally suffered himself. Only a victim can conduct this examination of the generation. As we will later see, Rav Grodzinski did not necessarily agree with this. Perhaps Rav Wolbe set this condition for rhetorical purposes. Regardless, with that introduction, Rav Wolbe then invokes Rav Grodzinski's Holocaust theology. III. Suffering and Sins The introduction to Toras Avraham (1978 second edition, p. 17) describes how Rav Grodzinski discussed at length with his students in the Kovno Ghetto the spiritual causes of the Holocaust. He listed twelve primary sins, or areas where we were lacking, and exhorted them to strengthen the Jewish people in these areas if they survived the war. Rav Grodzinski wrote all these talks down but the writings were lost in the war. [58]Rav Mordechai Zuckerman survived and recorded the twelve lackings from memory. They are: 1) Faith 2) Shabbos observance 3) Family purity 4) Kosher food 5) Charging interest 6) Torah education of children 7) Wasting time that could be used for Torah study 8) Loving your fellow Jew 9) Lovingkindness (chesed) 10) Making do with less (histapkus) 11) Trust in God 12) The land of Israel (I don't know what this means in this context). I do not know if Rav Grodzinski applied Talmudic statements to his contemporary events, such as "seven punishments come to the world due to seven sins" (Avos 5:8), or if he looked at specific types of suffering and found the "measure for measure" in them, or a combination of both methods or something else. Because his writings were lost, we lack insight into his specific methodology. Regardless, I appreciate his general approach, as described below, and recognize that he used it to reach specific conclusions, which I find worthy as areas to strengthen ourselves. Rav Wolbe adds to the above list the general secularization of the Jewish people that began with Emancipation and continued with the Jewish Enlightenment. This was accompanied by widespread abandonment of Jewish faith and practice. Historically, he claims, every period of "enlightenment" has ended with Jewish tragedy. The Holocaust continues that historical cycle. I believe that Rav Grodzinski's Holocaust theology is intimately connected with his theology of suffering. In a series of lectures in late 1936 and early 1937, Rav Grodzinski explored the unique value of suffering to the religious personality. It might be worthwhile noting that since childhood, Rav Grodzinski suffered great physical pain that he overcame through sheer force of personality. Rav Grodzinski begins by pointing out what we lost as a nation and as individuals by the cessation of prophecy (roughly) after the destruction of the First Temple. The prophets informed us of our sins, directed us to the proper behavior, guided us to spiritual recovery. When prophecy ceased, we lost that guidance but were not left without any religious compass. Suffering shows us where we must focus. God punishes us measure for measure. Therefore, we can look at our suffering, our punishment, as a guide for where we need to improve our behavior. To some degree, suffering is more effective than prophecy. "The removal of Achashverosh's ring (for the sealing of Haman's decree) was more effective than the forty-eight prophets and the seven prophetesses who prophesied on behalf of the Jewish people. They all were unable to bring the Jewish people to repentance, but the removal of Achashverosh's ring brought them to repentance" (Megillah 14a). Additionally, suffering empowers you to find your own path to redemption, without the need for a third party, a prophet. Suffering not only directs you to improve but encourages you, offers you the incentive of freedom from suffering. Rav Grodzinski adds (p. 54) that suffering guides not only the sinners but others, as well. When we see someone suffering and understand the sin that caused it, we learn a very persuasive lesson about what behavior we should avoid. This is true also about the educational value of nations making flawed decisions that seal their fate. The suffering of nations teaches us what national mistakes to avoid (cf. Zephaniah 3:6-7). In Rav Grodzinski's view, a wise and learned person, steeped in Talmud and Midrash, can examine the suffering of the Holocaust to identify its underlying spiritual causes and learn from them. After conducting a careful examination, Rav Grodzinski reached his conclusions (unfortunately, his thought process was recorded in writing but lost) and beseeched his students to work to fix these spiritual problems. IV. Common Objections 1) Rav Wolbe concludes with a common question: Why did righteous people suffer in the Holocaust? He quotes Rav Grodzinski as explaining that the more righteous someone is, the harsher he is judged. R. Akiva suffered from Roman torture and murder because, we are told, "this intention arose before" God (Menachos 29b). What is that intention? Rashi (Gen. 1:1) says, "At first God intended to create the world under the attribute of strict justice, but He realized that the world could not thus endure and therefore gave priority to mercy combined with justice." R. Akiva and the other righteous individuals are judged with the initial intent, pure justice. Even without Rav Wolbe's interpretation of this passage, we see elsewhere that the righteous are judged by a hairbreadth (Yevamos 121b), meaning that what for others constitutes a minor infraction for someone righteous is a big sin. Additionally, once God sends a punishment to a group (city, country, nation), that punishment applies to everyone whether righteous or wicked (Bava Kamma 60a). That is part of being a people -- our fates are connected. In fact, the Gemara (Shabbos 55a) says that when God punishes the Jewish people, He starts with the most righteous. 2) Were the people killed in the Holocaust guilty? - Even though no one can claim to be free from guilt, it is hard to imagine that anyone committed a sin so heinous as to deserve the horrors of the Holocaust. However, a sin committed by many is worse than a sin committed by an individual. Additionally, God is patient and allows time -- generations -- for the Jewish people to return before punishing us. When the punishment arrives, it is not just for that generation but for the previous generations as well (Ex. 20:5; Or Ha-Chaim, ad loc.). The generation of the Holocaust lived at the end of God's long wait for a return that never arrived. We do not stand in judgement of those who died or suffered in the Holocaust, nor do we say that they are more deserving than people before or after them. According to this understanding, they were individuals who lived at a time in history when the Jewish people was punished for its collective sins over many generations, for its long drift away from traditional Jewish observance. 3) Were the Nazis right to kill Jews? - This question is natural but odd. Natural because it emerges from the overall approach but odd because it has been discussed for centuries. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Teshuvah 6:5) asks why Pharaoh and the Egyptians were punished for enslaving the Jews when it was part of God's plan as told to Avraham (Gen. 15:13). Rambam answers that someone was destined to enslave the Jews but the Egyptians were guilty for being the ones to do it and therefore suffered ten plagues and drowning at the sea (see also Ramban, Gen. 15:14; I discuss it [59]here). May the Nazis suffer a hundred times ten plagues for their part in the Holocaust. None of this detracts from God's role in punishing the Jewish people through the guilty Egyptian hands. 4) What value is there in looking for other people's sins? - As discussed above, Rav Grodzinski sees value in learning what to fix. If we do not learn the spiritual lessons of history, we are condemned to repeat them. Additionally, Ramban (Sha'ar Ha-Gemul in Kisvei Ha-Ramban, vol. 2 p. 281; I discuss it [60]here) offers four reasons to engage in theodicy, even if ultimately you cannot fully understand God's ways. First, we benefit from gaining a better understanding of God's ways. More wisdom is good. Metaphysical knowledge, understanding God's actions, is always positive. Second, studying the ways in which God rewards and punishes people strengthens our belief. Our continuous exploration of God's ways reinforces within us His existence and His providence. Our greater understanding affords us confidence that explanations exist to even what we do not understand. Additionally, concludes Ramban, the obligations to fear and love God include a requirement to accept His judgment, to explain and justify God's decisions. This is a mitzvah of tziduk ha-din. 4) Is it sacrilegious to try to understand God's justice? - No, it is a mitzvah, as per the previous point. It also is not insulting to speak of punishment due to sins. When the Shakh writes about the Chmelnitzki massacres, he refers to what happened to us "due to our sins." When the Ra'avan writes about the First Crusade ([61]Kuntres Gezeiras Tatn"u), he specifically invokes the tokhecha, saying that they experienced all of the biblical curses. This is a strain of, if not the dominant strain in, traditional Judaism. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Ta'aniyos 1:3) calls it cruelty to fail to look for the sins that led to divine punishment. 5) Can anyone know God's reasons absent prophecy? - Rav Yitzchak Hutner ("Holocaust" -- A Study of the Term, and the Epoch it is Meant to Describe" in [62]Jewish Observer, October 1977, p. 9) writes: "One would have to be a navi or Tanna (a prophet or Talmudic sage) to claim knowledge of the specific reasons for what befell us; anyone on a lesser plane claiming to do so tramples in vain upon the bodies of the kedoshim who died Al Kiddush Hashem [as holy martyrs] and misuses the power to interpret and understand Jewish history." On the other hand, this same Rav Hutner gave an approbation to Rav Wolbe's book quoted above. Furthermore, it seems that Rav Grodzinski, himself a holy martyr, felt his method of analyzing suffering serves the function of prophecy in today's age. 6) Why does this usually ring so hollow? - When the Holocaust is discussed without sensitivity and empathy, the proposed explanations sound shallow and offensive. In my opinion, that is why Rav Wolbe began with a long introduction and invoked the conclusions of a Holocaust victim, Rav Grodzinski. Furthermore, many of the people offering explanations today either are, or sound like or are portrayed by the media as being, self-righteous fools. It is hard to take seriously someone whose analysis is shallow and only validates his regular message. If your answer to everything is female immodesty, you lack credibility to offer a thoughtful and nuanced answer. Rav Grodzinski does not face this challenge but some people may unfairly associate him with others who suffer that problem. There may be other reasons that this approach often rings hollow but these should suffice for our purposes. Personally, I benefited from this tokhecha approach which I intuited as a non-religious teenager. I am not certain which sins caused the Holocaust but I am open to honest, sensitive speculation as a way of learning from history, which I believe is that in which Rav Grodzinski and Rav Wolbe engaged. If this approach had been deemed theologically unacceptable, despite its impeccable pedigree, I don't know if I would be religious today. In my opinion, it is a shame to remove this approach from our theological toolbox due to politics and rhetoric from decades ago. ... 3 comments 1. Kovner Sep 8, 20 at 6:44 am You missed out on one more important approach. Read the classic introduction to Zichron Kodosh written by the author of Nesivos Sholom - RSN Barzovsky zt"l. The sefer was published once, and never reprinted. Also, the Toras Avrohom was published by a son - not sons - of RAG. Only one son did not perish. ... 3. Kovner Sep 9, 20 at 7:05 pm I'm not skilled to do so accurately and faithfully. Never the less, I'll venture to say that the central point is that it's all part of Hashem's Grand Plan of human history, and is beyond our comprehension. And therefore the most appropriate response is "Vayidom Aharon"... ... Copyright 2020 All rights reserved References 51. https://merrimackvalleyhavurah.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/the-face-of-god-thoughts-on-the-holocaust/ 52. http://www.mysatmar.com/docs/shite_hakdoshe/ 53. https://torasavigdor.org/ 54. https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Madness-Avigdor-Millers-Holocaust/dp/B00EF68V9C 55. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Grodzinski 56. https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/54188/harav-yitzchok-grodzinsky-recalls-the-last-moments-of-hagon-rav-elchonon-wasserman-hyd-before-his-murder.html 57. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Wolbe 58. https://www.jdn.co.il/breakingnews/1230669/ 59. https://www.torahmusings.com/2016/05/were-the-egyptians-right/ 60. https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/10/why-theodicy/ 61. https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34838&st=&pgnum=2&hilite= 62. https://agudah.org/the-jewish-observer-vol-12-no-8-october-1977chesvan-5738/ From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Sat Sep 12 10:18:12 2020 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 17:18:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Has anyone seen litereature about the following Issues when Davening BiYehidut (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. (2) If one says the piyut of the Avoda after his private Musaf shmoneh Esrei, can he fall korim, what about Aleinu Shanah Tovah, Beri'ah u-metukah! Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Sep 13 20:36:29 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2020 23:36:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 Message-ID: . asked several questions about Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4, who wrote: > And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the > Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. Spoiler alert: I have several problems with this Aruch Hashulchan, and I suspect that (as R' Wolberg suspects), the AhS had ulterior reasons for writing this (such as the inroads that Reform was making via their translations) and could not have really meant it l'halacha. In any case, there are other poskim who do allow translations. I will begin by giving my own translation of this section of AhS, so that if anyone disagrees with my understanding of what he said, they can bring it to my attention. I will break it into several numbered pieces for easier reference. >>> 1) Know that this [halacha] that Krias Shema and Tefilla may be said in any language - this is certainly when one translates really the entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh into the other language. For otherwise, it would not constitute Shema and Tefilla. 2) According to that, this law does not apply except in the time of the Mishna and Gemara, for they knew our language well, and they were able to translate it. 3) But now, it is well-known that we have a number of uncertainties in explaining the words, and the commentators are divided about it. For example, how do we translate "totafos"? Similarly, the pasuk "Shema Yisrael" has various explanations even of its simple meaning. Likewise in the section about tzitzis, some explain it [the word "tzitzis"] in the sense of "looking" [from the root tzadi yud tzadi], and some explain it as "going" [from yud tzadi aleph]. Same for the word "p'sil" and many [other words] like it. 4) Behold, the essential Name of Havay' - we don't know how to translate it correctly! There are those who translate it as Nitzchi [Eternal], and some translate it as Kol-Yachol [Almighty], and there is no translation at all for "Was and Is and Will Be", which is the real Name Havay', so they equate the translation of the Name Havay' with the Name Elokim. 5) [Here he says something about two very different ways of translating "V'chara af", but I don't understand what he is saying.] 6) And therefore, nowadays it is forbidden to recite Krias Shema or Tefilla or any brachos except in Lashon Hakodesh, and so have the Geonei Olam paskened for about eighty years now, and this is the bottom-line halacha. >>> The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it? He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists? According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty AND Was/Is/WillBe? In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3: 1) It seems in my humble opinion that there is an established halacha by which one can get out of any questionable bracha acharona. For example, one is unsure if he said a bracha acharona or not. Or if he *needs* to make a bracha acharona or not. There is a way to extricate himself from this safek. 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167. 3) If so, one can say "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, boray nefashos etc. ..." If he was obligated in this bracha, then he is yotzay with this. And if he didn't need this bracha, then he has *not* uttered the Name of Heaven in vain, because there is no mention of the Name at all. Look, you can say "Rachamana" a hundred times! 4) Or similar things with other brachos. You should think in your heart that if you need the bracha then it is [being said] for the sake of a bracha; and if not, then it's just talking. 5) I have done this myself several times when drinking hot drinks. The most obvious thing from this section is that the Aruch Hashulchan personally believes that a bracha CAN be said in Aramaic. You might respond that he makes an exception for Aramaic, which is arguably a Lashon Hakodesh. But look again at the AhS's requirements for an adequate translation of Hashem's Name - which is an absolute necessity when saying a bracha - and I don't think "Rachamana" conveys any sense of "Was and Is and Will Be". Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude someone from a partial translation. For example, one could translate most of the words, and leave the difficult words untranslated, which is almost exactly how ArtScroll handles the cited case of "totafos": "Bind them as a sign upon your arm and let them be tefillin between your eyes." If I'm understanding Siman 62 correctly, the AhS wants translation to be all-or-nothing, and since all is not possible, he feels justified in banning all translations. But in Siman 202, a partial translation is exactly what he is doing, by translating the initial words of the bracha, and then continuing with the regular Hebrew text. By the way, it seems that Rav Moshe Feinstein agrees that a translation must be all-or-nothing. See Igros Moshe OC 4:40:27, which is two paragraphs. In the first paragraph, he rejects the AhS's suggestion of using Brich Rachamana to get out of problems, precisely because you can't mix languages in that manner. (It's not at all clear to me why we're not allowed to mix languages, but it is very clear that Rav Moshe rejects it.) In the second paragraph he explains that even if one would say the entire bracha in Aramaic, that too would not resolve a safek bracha problem, because whereas the AhS had no compunctions against saying Rachamana a hundred times, *we* are noheg to avoid saying the Name in vain even when translated. As an aside, there are several teshuvos in which Rav Moshe explains his views on how to translate Hashem's Name for brachos in other languages. See for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:272, where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana, "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ... And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe, whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include concepts like "Was and Is and Will Be". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Sep 14 05:43:25 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:43:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. What is the minimum amount of shofar blowing that one is required to hear? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. In three different places the Torah commands us to blow shofar in the month of Tishrei: Twice in relation to Rosh Hashanah, and once in reference to Yom Kippur (Yovel ? Jubilee). The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 34a) connects the three verses and derives that each time the shofar is blown, it must be blown three times. The Gemara also proves that every blowing of the shofar actually consists of three parts: A Tekiah (a long blow), followed by a Teruah (a broken blow), followed by a Tekiah. This makes for a total of nine blows. The mitzvah is to blow the shofar nine times following this pattern. Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah However, because the Gemara records a disagreement as to the sound of the Teruah, we blow three variations. This amounts to 30 blows. 3X ? Tekiah ? Shevarim Teruah ? Tekiah=(12) 3X ? Tekiah ? Shevarim? Tekiah=(9) 3X ? Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah=(9) This is the minimum amount of shofar blows that one should hear to fulfill their obligation. If even this is too much, at the very least one should make sure to hear at least ten blasts. (See Mishnah Berurah 586:22 & 600:7). Tekiah ? Shevarim Teruah ? Tekiah=(4) Tekiah ? Shevarim ? Tekiah=(3) Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah=(3) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 18:29:14 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 21:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur Message-ID: . R' Aryeh Frimer asked: > Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when > Davening BiYehidut > (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but > perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la > Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head: Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice. Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 06:38:38 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:38:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Q. Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 565:5) writes that the "Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim" > (thirteen attributes of mercy, Shemos 34:6-7) may not be recited unless there is a > minyan. When these pesukim are recited in the context of prayer, they have the > elevated status of a "davar she'bikedusha," like Kaddish or Kedusha, that may only > be said in the presence of a minyan. I actually traced this back to its source - a new obsession of mine. It's a Tur in 565 (Hil. Ta'anis). "Rav Nosson writes there's no Minhag for an individual to say the 13 attributes." (Excuse the stilted word-for-word translation). The Tur then seems to make it clear that he's quoting this to ensure people don't find this Rav Nosson and pasken like it: "I don't know what the problem is since it's like saying Psukim, since the Chachamim only say (not to say w/o a Minyan) a Dovor Shebikdusha like Kaddish, Kedusha and Borchu" (Who is this Rav Nosson? The only Rishon I could find by this name was the Oruch.) The Darkei Moshe injects (on Rav Nosson's statement) saying "our Minhag is (for individuals) to say it, but not during the Shmoneh Esre. The Mahr"iv quoting the O"Z says individuals should not say Selichos." (I.e. they used to say Selichos on Ta'anis during Chazoras haShatz. Actually, we Yekkes still do.) See it online at https://www.sefaria.org.il/Tur%2C_Orach_Chaim.565.1?with=Darchei%20Moshe - for those who can see the Hebrew: , ???? ???? ?????:??:? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?"? ???? [?] ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???: [?] ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????"? ??? ?"? ???? ????? ???? ?????? So the Tur and the Darkei Moshe both agree that an individual can say the "Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim". The dissenting opinion says to skip Selichos altogether. >From there it's all downhill. The common denominator being that all Nosie Keilim seem to pasken like Rav Nosson and try to find workarounds. I find this fascinating. I wonder if the Tur now regrets ever mentioning this opinion. :-) Note that this is all mentioned in Hil. Ta'anis. In 581 where they discuss Selichot during Elul, they ignore this topic completely. KVT - Danny From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Sep 16 10:42:32 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:42:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] practical and detailed shir for Baalei tokaya and makri Message-ID: <089901d68c50$c22d7680$46886380$@touchlogic.com> Very good. Starts basic, but gets better.. >From Rabbi Mordechai Scheiner, rosh Kollel Ohr Yosef - toronto https://zoom.us/rec/share/xyvl_GE2lRo5GmE02A0XVqL4TEp3Kq4RqYfPZ4zAbezsR4D1c7G8LaIToB8dxYbe.0vgzJDhv9dDlViCP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 13:40:15 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:40:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <2110840790.2504917.1600178620157@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20200914185208.GC25700@aishdas.org> <2110840790.2504917.1600178620157@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20200917204015.GA749@aishdas.org> Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT: > Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim > we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is > problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out sifrei > Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos given to > 12 year olds, etc... > This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked how > we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to celebrate a > siyum that itself is iffy. > But when I wrote that, few of us really thought that Israel would be > closing down for the chagim, and that ever minute of shul in nearly all > of chu"l is increasing medical risk. So now we're talking about invoking > heteirim to party at the peril of the medically fragile in the community. > I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the > bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this year's > leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a Simchas > Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can anyone argue > for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that psychological need for > the majority of people? On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 2:03pm GMT, R Harry Maryles replied on Areivim: > It's true that most Shuls had a pretty big gap in their weekly Kriyas > HaTorah and that many Parshios were missed. But some Shuls hae made them > up. In a few cases no Parshios were missed. For example in my son's > neighborhood of Ramat bet Shemesh which is over 90% observant, my son > did KhT every Shabbos from his balcony with a Minyan made of of all of > his neighbors within earshot. (Don't know how he arrived at calling this > Teffilah B'Tzibur, but that was his Beshas Ha'dechak Psak.) > IIUC, Doing Hakafos on ST is a Minahg of the Tzibur, not the Yachid. > It is based on what the Klal as a whole does. The celebration of > completing yearly cycle with Hakafos is therefore appropriate this year > just like every year. But only along the lines I suggested because of > the pandemic. There are cases where every parashah was leined beause the members of the minyan can't disband anyway -- like in a nursing home or on an army base. But I fear you presented a false dichotomy. Yes, leining and therefore the siyum on leining we celebrate on ST are about the tzibur. But I wouldn't assume that means the global tzibur. After all, there was even a time when annual leining wasn't a universal norm. I had presented a third option, because I had assumed a neighorhood tzibbur. With all the modern complications now that most communities have shenei batei din ba'ir, as we put it WRT the tzibbur accepting Shabbos. But whether your town, your shul, or something else, that I didn't have a position on. So as I saw it, if no minyan in town leined the whole seifer Torah betzibbur, how is that community making a siyum? Shouldn't the shul making the party include at least person completing the text being mesayeim? In any case, there are at least those three possibilities, and we only agree on ruling out the first one, the yachid. But my point on Areivim, just like the point I made here to begin with, was more about most of the minhagim for celebrating Simchas Torah are on the defensive. We lein at night. (At least most of us do.) We take out more sifrei Torah than we read from. We give way too many people aliyos. We are relying on heteirim on a slew of dinim about kavod ST and qeri'as haTorah. We need a certain level of justification for it. We don't have to just say that ST celebrates someone else's completion of the Torah -- we need to be able to argue that's true strongly enough to justify those heteirim. Or, that we need ST for our mental health strongly enough to qualify as justification. Which is an approach I am more sympathetic to than saying I am dancing in my shul with a seifer Torah to celebrate the men of Nachal Yehudah (eg) and in the senior living facilities a couple of miles outside our eiruv at Daughter of Miryam completing a cycle of leining. Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries http://www.aishdas.org/asp are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 18 05:05:52 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:05:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Is one permitted to fast on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. One is not permitted to fast on Rosh Hashanah because Rosh Hashanah is a Yom Tov. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (OC 597:1) rules that one must eat, drink and rejoice on Rosh Hashanah. Nonetheless, unlike other Yomim Tovim, one should not overindulge, lest the solemn nature of the day will be obscured. However, there were Rishonim who held that it is permissible to fast during the daytime because Rosh Hashanah is a day of teshuva. Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l said that his great-grandfather, the Beis HaLevi, would fast both days. In fact, there were those who would fast even on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah because they considered the importance of teshuva on this day to be on the level of pikuach nefesh (life threatening), which overrides the requirement to eat a Shabbos seuda. Although in practice we follow the Shulchan Aruch and do not fast on Rosh Hashanah, the Mishnah Berurah (584:5) makes a distinction between Rosh Hashanah which falls on Shabbos, and Rosh Hashanah which falls on a weekday, as follows: When Rosh Hashanah falls on a weekday, we are permitted to extend the davening into the afternoon, while if Rosh Hashanah is on Shabbos, we are required to finish davening before chatzos (halachic midday) so as not to fast past the morning. As such, if one expects their shul to finish davening on Shabbos after chatzos, it is best to drink a tea or coffee in the morning before going to shul, to avoid fasting inappropriately on Shabbos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 18 05:17:03 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:17:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Laws & Customs: Month of Tishrei during the Corona period Message-ID: For those in quarantine, davening by themselves or in outside Minyanim Please see https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/groupsioattachments/14569/76906693/102/0?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJECNKOVMCCU3ATNQ&Expires=1600431735&Signature=d1788QfnWQyWHF1xjnl7Zn59EJg%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3D%22Tishrei+During+Corona.pdf%22 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Mon Sep 21 05:50:14 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 13:50:14 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? Message-ID: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT: > Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim > we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is > problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out > sifrei Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos > given to > 12 year olds, etc... BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So while it might be that the Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah out). Note that that also means that the siyum for the year, even in a normal year, is not complete (or about to be completed) when the sifrei Torah are taken out at night, as the first hakafos take place (at latest) on the night of Simchat Torah, and yet the finishing of the yearly reading only occurs the next day. Note the reason why I say at latest is because many Sephardim (although not all) have the custom of doing seven sets of seven hakafot which mean they do hakafot on Shmini Atzeret as well (three sets on Shmini Atzeret, to correspond with the three services, three sets on Simchat Torah, to correspond with the three services, and one after Simchat Torah). > This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked > how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to > celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy. There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah, something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah. Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations and to call to others to make a feast. *And further it is the custom* in our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every place according to its custom. *And further we are accustomed* to circle with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with the lulav *and all is because of joy* *Further we are accustomed* to call all the lads to the sefer Torah, ... and in every place according to their custom. *Further we are accustomed* to finish the Torah even with a child oleh..." That is, while you appear to be saying that *because* we make a siyum on the Torah *therefore* we do all these other halachically iffy customs, even the Rema does not say this. To the extent he gives a reason, it is "because of joy", and all the customs are as a result of *that* category. Which makes sense, because making a siyum justifies a seudah being considered a seudas mitzvah (and may justify the name of Simchas Torah, instead of second day Shmini Atzeret), and there are references in the gemara that seem to justify the making of a feast for a siyum, although the derivation is not really that straightforward, nowhere does it allow any of the other behaviour that might be Halachically iffy. On the other hand, simcha is a mitzvah d'orisa on yom tov, and indeed according to Sukkah 48a " It was taught in a braita: [Devarim 16:16] "and it will be completely joyous" this is to include the night of the last day of Yom Tov [lelei yom tov acharon]" Now of course, that is referring in the Torah to Shmini Artzeret, and it is interesting that in chutz l'aretz, we seem to have taken the especially joyous obligation of that d'orisa mitzvah, and attached it to what is the night of yom tov achron for us, which in fact is only minhag avosaynu b'yadanu. But be that as it may, it seems to me that, as the Rema says, the justification for all of these minhagim is simchas yom tov, and particularly the extra simcha of the final days of yom tov, and that they are independent of one another, so that the aspects related to making a siyum on the Torah are independent of taking the sifrei Torah out, and of doing the hakafos, and of singing and dancing. And if anything, the minhag of having a siyum on completing a full yearly reading of the Torah could perhaps be seen as being caused by the obligation to create extra joy on Shmini Atzeret/Simchas Torah, and not the other way around. We have arranged our schedules so that we have the joy of completely the Torah on this day, as Torah learning is in and of itself a form of joy (see eg the introduction to the Eglei Tal), so we arrange them to coincide. > I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the > bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this > year's leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a > Simchas Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can > anyone argue for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that > psychological need for the majority of people? But again, this assumes that all the minhagim on Simchas Torah are a direct result of the siyum, which I do not believe is the case. It is important to have Simchas Yom Tov, and to do what we can to maximise simchas Yom Tov, and if the siyum part is not possible, but the other parts are, then the other parts should be done. <> And the classic justification for these heterim is that the aseh of simcha is docheh, as per the Rema. However, because we are taking about simcha that is required by the Torah, it is linked to and part and parcel with simcha with the Torah - without the Torah there would be no obligation of such simcha, so simcha that is antithetical to the Torah, ie does not encompass kavod haTorah, is not justified. Which is why I am not even convinced that it is a tzibbur versus yachid thing. Would there be a problem if a Rav, who happened to live above the shul, took out the sefrei Torah and did hakafos with them with his family around an empty shul, because he was restricted by Covid requirements to his bubble, which did not contain a minyan? I'm not sure there would. There are potential issues with leining, and even more so with making birchas haTorah on such layning, but do we consider hakafos as a dvar shebekedusha that absolutely has to have a minyan? It is post gemara, so it is not so clear it can be a dvar shebekedusha, which might need to have been instituted by the Anshei Knesset Hagadola or at least not to be post Ravina and Rav Ashi (that might also turn on whether you follow the Aruch haShulchan and the Rokach, who hold that kaddish was instituted by the Anshei Knesset HaGadola, and that is what justifies its status as a dvar shebekedusha, or whether you follow the Shibbolei Ha-Leket and the teshuvas HaGeonim which seem to suggest that the whole institution of kaddish within prayer was instituted by the Geonim (and if so, whether a takana of the Geonim is and remains binding or it does not)). <> But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as something of an obligation of the tzibbur (the tzibbur would seem to be needed in order to make sure that we are making the widow happy). So to the extent that it is dependent upon simcha, then that obligation remains, even if the minhagim of the tzibbur, ie the way the tzibbur traditionally performs such simcha, might not be possible at the present time, and hence is not an obligation. -Micha Gmar Tov Chana From doniels at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 03:16:13 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:16:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur Message-ID: . R' Aryeh Frimer asked: > Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when > Davening BiYehidut > (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but > perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la > Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. R' Akiva Miller answered: > No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head: > Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it > certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice. > Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is > mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there. In a nutshell, you can see it here on Sefaria: https://tinyurl.com/y2qgtuyx It's a Mishna in Nedirim 3:1, discussed in Talmud 23a, codified in Yoreh De'a 211 to which the Ba'er Heitev decides that as long as one said it loud enough to be heard to one's own ears, it's valid. None of the commentators along the way mention publicity. The only issue they have is "Devorim She'B'Leiv" if it's whispered or thought. Along the way I learnt: You can say it ("just kidding about the Neder stuff") any time. Those who hold you don't have to say it right before making the Neder, don't give it an expiration date - IOW once a lifetime should be sufficient. Bottom line: If it works, you can chant the "futuristic" Kol Nidrei to yourself in an undertone. CLOR. Gmar Chasima Tova - Danny, not a Rabbi by any stretch of imagination. From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Sep 17 08:56:27 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:56:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Consumer Daf HaKashrus - Spices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I normally do not send out messages with attachments, but I could not locate this online. [See for attached PDF. -micha] From the pdf file > This article is an in-depth look at a specific category of vegetables: > spices. Spices refer to aromatic vegetable products used to season or > flavor foods. Less than 2% of food consumed in the United States are > spices, but what a difference that 2% makes! Without spices, all food > would be bland and unappetizing. > As mentioned, there are many spices exported by Israel, which create a > whole host of potential kashrus issues. All uncertified Israeli spices > present serious kashrus challenges in the form of tevel and shemitah. A > Mashgiach visiting a spice plant must be on the lookout for this. Because > of the aromatic and fragrant nature of spices, these spices will not > be batel in a mixture, as they are avida l'taama, added to mixtures > for taste, and anything which is added to a mixture for taste does not > become batel. This halachah is paskened by Rema in Yoreh Deah 98:8, > from the Gemara (Beitza 38b, Chulin 6a). See the attachment for much more. From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Sep 22 05:50:20 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:50:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Cheerios and Pas Yisroel Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Can one eat Cheerios during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva (ten days from Rosh Hashana to Yom Kippur) or Shabbos and Yom Tov for those who only eat Pas Yisroel on those days? What about other breakfast cereals? Must they be Pas Yisroel? A. There are differing opinions as to whether Cheerios is considered pas. The OU poskim do not consider it pas, because of the size of the individual pieces and the manner in which it is made. Likewise, wheat flake cereals are not considered ?bread-like? and therefore do not need to be pas Yisroel. Corn and Rice Cereals are, by definition, not bread items. See our Pas Yisroel List ? 5781 at OUKosher.org for OU certified Pas Yisroel brands and products. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 14:09:36 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200922210936.GD19252@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 11:36:29PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was > supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated > prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in > the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it? The SA often just echoes Chazal when the case is considered theoretical. So, if he didn't see people really trying to say Shema in la'az, the Mechaber wouldn't deal with the practical problems of trying to do so and just note that hypothetically, Chazal said it was mutar. > He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators > lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are > incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text > holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to > adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists? Or maybe just the right shade for each instance. If you get too nitpicky, you'll note that two different speakers of the same language have different memories and associations with many of their different words, and don't have bidiyuq the same things in mind when using them. Exact precision is a rabbit's hole to fall down. The question is defining "exact enough". Maybe exact enough to relay one out of multiple peshatim? WRT semitic languages, there are going to be much closer matches. So, davening in Aramaic seems much more doable than davening in a Romantic or Germanic language. > According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the > Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word > "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those > languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's > satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty > AND Was/Is/WillBe? Or maybe Moshe translated to a phrase. Or maybe, because Moshe knew which connotation of the sheim was primary in each context, he was able to pick the right translation for each. > In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my > translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3: ... > 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana, > Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe > (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written > in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167. But he pointedly does NOT say that it's a good idea even if it's not a a safeiq. So it would seem translations are only good enough when there is no better way to deal with the situation. You're comparing what he says here lekhat-chilah with his solution for a bedi'eved. BTW, I think berikh Rachmana is about fulfilling the purpose of the berachah without trying to fulfill Chazal's coinage. Like if we said you would be be meqabel ol Malkhus Shamayim by saying Shema in English, but not yotzei the actual mitzvah of Q"Sh. Because there is no "atah", and "of this bread" isn't "Who Brings bread out of the earth". It's not even a close paraphrase, never mind translation. It's not even an exactness of translation issue. Like, what if a native Hebrew speaker followed AhS OC 202 by saying "Barukh haRachaman Adon Melekh haOlam vehalachmaniah hazot". He would also avoid the risk of berakhaha levatalah and also that of the geneivah-like behavior of eating without a berakhah. > Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the > entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did > he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude > someone from a partial translation.... Why? Maybe someone would think "If I get a perfect enough translation just until 'al levavekha' or just the first pereq, at least he would be yotzei deOraisa." And SE is a different kind of problem than Shema, since its core is baqashos, not miqra. > for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:[1]72, > where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have > assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana, > "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and > established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common > among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ... > And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe, > whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include > concepts like "Was and Is and Will Be". BUT... only for some of the dinim of Sheimos. Not translations of tefillos. As you started your discussion of RMF -- he agrees with the AhS that such translations don't exist. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, http://www.aishdas.org/asp others come to love him very naturally, and Author: Widen Your Tent he does not need even a speck of flattery. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 14:23:23 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:23:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:50:14PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot > HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So while it might be that the > Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to > come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein > and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think > it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah > out).... I was taught the same line of reasoning besheim haGra. (I emailed RSMandel to double-check if it was from him, and did he have the mar'eh maqom. Got impatient holding off this reply for an answer.) >> This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked >> how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to >> celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy. > There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah, > something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and > Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be > related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the > way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah. > Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman > 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs: > > "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and > make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are > accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations > and to call to others to make a feast. *And further it is the custom* in > our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the > sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every > place according to its custom. *And further we are accustomed* to circle > with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with > the lulav *and all is because of joy*..." The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah shel torah* venohagim...") And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah". And since the Rama told you the simchah in question is that of the siyum, I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum, and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a community that year. >> Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either >> way. > But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as > something of an obligation of the tzibbur... Yes, but we don't take the sifrei Torah out at night for any other yom tov. It's not "just" simchas YT. So the question is whether I can invoke sharing in *his* simchah over finishing the Torah to participate. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search http://www.aishdas.org/asp of a spiritual experience. You are a Author: Widen Your Tent spiritual being immersed in a human - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Sep 22 16:57:21 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:57:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] forms of teshuvah Message-ID: From R' Gil Student: Medieval Ashkenazic authorities prescribed a variety of strong acts of self-induced suffering as part of the teshuvah process, including long-term fasting, lashes, exile and more. Rabbeinu Peretz (Gloss to Semak, no. 53) lists four kinds of teshuvah: 1) teshuvas charatah, in which you regret the sin; 2) teshuvas ha-geder, in which you set additional boundaries for yourself to avoid sinning in the future; 3) teshuvas ha-kasuv, in which you undergo the punishment listed in the Torah for your sin; 4) teshuvas ha-mishkal, in which you inflict yourself with pain corresponding to the amount of pleasure you enjoyed with your sin. Of these four, the first is what we consider standard teshuvah and the second is going above and beyond. The third and fourth are not - and should not be - practiced today. The Vilna Gaon's brother (Ma'alos Ha-Torah, introduction) makes clear that we cannot undergo these harsh forms of teshuvah in our time (his time, even more so in our time) and emerge physically and religiously healthy. Instead, he recommends intense Torah study. Me- what is the nature of the paradigm change claimed by the Ma'alos Ha-Torah? Gct 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 Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Tue Sep 22 15:25:17 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:25:17 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: <> Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is: ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the Torah" That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is because of the custom of making of completing the Torah. So maybe you should argue that *this* year Simchas Torah should not be called Simchas Torah, but Shmini Atzeres sheni! He does not say, as you have said "the simcha is that of completing the Torah*. << And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah".>> Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag. Most of the prohibitions however (such as not taking the sifrei Torah out for no reason, reading over and over, calling up ketanim) are because of kavod haTorah, ie kavod haTorah is the counterweight reason *not* to do these minhagim. However similar to the idea of oseh docheh lo ta'aseh, the mitzvah of simcha is able push aside certain kevod haTorah restrictions in certain circumstances, but clearly not in ones that are in fact a disgrace to the Torah, but only ones that enhance the simcha of the Torah. There is no reason for a siyum to push aside prohibitions relating to kavod haTorah. <> But he didn't he told you that is why the day has that name, not that the simcha in question is the siyum. All the different minhagim, including, but not limited to, having the siyum, are because of simcha. << I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum, and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a community that year.>> Then he need not have listed them as "v'od nehagu" etc <> But the gemora learns the simcha for yom tov acharon shel chag out of a separate pasuk to the psukim that we learn it for Sukkos. Why would Shmini Atzeres need its only special pasuk with its own special limud, why does the Torah not combine it with the simcha learnt out for sukkos? The mishna understands that one is obligated in the same way just like the seven days of sukkos so why are they not combined in the Torah? The logical answer is because there is something somewhat different about the nature of this simcha (and in fact one might be tempted to darshen the ach, not as the gemora does to exclude the first night of sukkos, but to say that it is a day of simcha only, not simcha and sukkah and arba minim, but only simcha). The custom, and the Rema makes it very clear that it is a custom, of making the siyum is very late, given that we know that a three year cycle was in existence for many years, and yet the descriptions of what was going on on Simchas Torah well predate the universality of the one year cycle (descriptions amongst the Geonim, inter alia). The fundamental mitzvah on Shmini Atzeres/Simchas Torah is therefore ach sameach! The interesting question is why in chutz l'aretz, other than amongst those Sefardim who start the hakafot on Shmini Artzeres, we do *not* take the sifrei Torah out on Shmini Atzeres. However, to the extent that one is sitting in the sukkah on Shmini Artzeret, and it is still thereby linked to sukkos, then maybe it makes sense that in chutz l'aretz, the day that is ach sameach, with no link to what went before, is Simchas Torah, despite it only being yom tov sheini shel golios. <> But only if you assume the linkage that, against the explicit language of the Rema, the cause of all the other minhagim is the siyum, including where they are otherwise in violation of kevod haTorah, rather than that the special simcha due to the special pasuk is the cause of all the minhagim including the siyum. GCT! -Micha Regards Chana From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 03:12:16 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 06:12:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? Message-ID: . Several posters referenced the Rama, which R"n Chana Luntz translated as: > The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they > rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of > the Torah Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to our private learning of the parshios, such as those who learned the parsha each week by reading it themselves from a chumash while the shuls were closed? Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv, but by taking the time and effort to actually mouth every single word myself (rather than just listen to the kriah and let my mind dwell on this pasuk and that pasuk), I feel that my learning of Chumash this year was considerably better than in years past, and I'll have no problem celebrating that, to whatever extent our rav allows. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 23 05:51:56 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 12:51:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Medicine on Yom Kippur Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May a person who is ill, but is not in mortal danger (choleh she?ein bo sakana) consume unsweetened medicine on Yom Kippur? A. This is the subject of a dispute between the Acharonim. According to Shaagas Aryeh (75-76), one is not permitted to take medicine on Yom Kippur. Even though medicine is not a ?food?, and the prohibition to consume medicine is Rabbinic in nature ? which is normally waived for people who are ill, nonetheless, by swallowing the pill , the individual demonstrates that he or she considers it as food, and it is therefore forbidden on Yom Kippur. K?sav Sofer (OC 111) strongly disagrees and maintains that consuming medicine when ill does not demonstrate that it is a food item, and therefore medicine may be swallowed on Yom Kippur. Igros Moshe (OC 111:91) concurs with this ruling as well. If a person must drink water to swallow a pill, contemporary poskim recommend adding a bitter substance to water, such as a significant amount of lemon juice or vinegar, so that the water has a very unpleasant taste. This was the opinion of Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul, (Ohr L?Tziyon, IV 15:8), Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (Ashrei Ha?Ish III 23:230) and Rav Nissim Karelitz (Chut HaShani, Yom Kippur p. 145). If the pill is sweet, it is considered to be a food independently of its medicinal properties. In such instances, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach advised that the pill should be wrapped in a tissue and swallowed in that manner (Shemira Shabbos KeHilchasa 39:8; Halichos Shlomo, Yom HaKippurim 5:8). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 11:23:34 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 14:23:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200923182334.GA22665@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:25:17PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing >> the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah >> shel torah* venohagim...") > Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is: ... > Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah > because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the > Torah" > That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is > because of the custom of making of completing the Torah.... Because "shesimeichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh legamrah shel Torah". The simchah and making the mishteh are for the completion of the Torah. And thus the name of the holiday reflects that simchah. ... > Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha > on yom tov acharon shel chag. But the Rama doesn't say simchas YT, just "mishum simchah". OTOH, as we saw, the Rama opens by speaking of the simchah and mishteh of completing the Torah. So, if he just says "simchah" afterwards, why would I think it is anything but the "semeichin ... legamra shel Torah" already brought into the discussion? You're assuming the Rama changes topics without telling us. (Of course, I didn't think any of this out before my first post. I just read the sources, not thinking about other possibilities until it became a discussion. But I can't say that you convinced me yet that I brought too many unconscious assumptions to the table, that your read is comparably viable.) On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 06:12:16AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public > laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to > our private learning of the parshios... It refers to the completion that occured that morning, which was indeed leining. The AhS ad loc says the party is traditionally paid for with pledges by the Chasanim. Not, as I see done today, that the qiddush the next two Shabbosos are. > Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv... A siyum is a siyum. People make a siyum on a mesechtes gemara that they had no particular chiyuv to learn over learning something else. I just don't think we were mesaymim what the minhagim were established to celebrate. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. http://www.aishdas.org/asp If you want time, you must make it. Author: Widen Your Tent - Charles Buxton - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Wed Sep 23 15:37:44 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 23:37:44 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: > Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have > simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag. And RMB replied: <> I suppose the reason it seems to me obvious that mishum simcha, means the simcha of Yom Tov, is because: a) when the poskim say something is meshum simcha in the context of yom tov, they mean the mitzvah of simcha - for example: the Levush and the Bach (and numerous others, I believe) hold that the hakafos of the lulav during sukkos is mishum simcha (or at least the hakafos in the Beis HaMikdash, come directly out of the pasuk mandating simcha, and we then do them as a zecher. In that context, various rishonim and achronim discuss whether an avel is permitted to do hakafos, ie whether the simcha of the day pushes of the fact that a avel is forbidden from simcha. And in all these discussions, when they talk about simcha or mishum simcha, simchas Yom Tov is understood. b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas Torah. But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion would need to be had. c) On the other hand, the obligation to have a seudas mitzvah on finishing learning comes from a statement in gemora shabbas (118b-119a) where Abaye says: he should be rewarded because whenever he heard about a tzurba d'rabanan finishing a mesechta, he would make a yom tov for the Rabbis, which is understood to mean a seudas mitzvah. This is listed as part of a whole list of various Amoraim stating what it is that they believe they should get a special reward for, including being careful in known mitzvos (such a tefillin and tzitzis, and three meals on shabbas) and what are identified as good minhagim (such as not going daled amos with his head uncovered). It is really not clear into which category Abaye's statement falls. And while the Rema in Yore Deah siman 246, si'if 26 does say that " when one finishes a mesechet it is a mitzvah to rejoice and to make a feast, and it is called a seudas mitzvah" - to hang everything we do on Simchas Torah on this one statement in the gemora seems like a breathtaking chiddush. And think about it this way. If I were to finish a mesechta, here today, does that mean I can take the sifrei Torah out of the aron, dance around with them, call up some children (and some people together at once, making the brachos at once), read multiple times, take the sifrei Torah out into the street, (and, if it was shabbas, dance even if in general I held that dancing on shabbas is not permitted, as per the Shulchan Aruch?). Given that the essential siyum that is described in the gemora and referred to by the Rema is on a mesechet in Shas, then all this should be permissible on any day of the week, not just Simchas Torah. Because mai nafka minah. So I suppose it seems to me obvious that all the heterim the Rema refers to cannot be because of the simcha of the siyum, especially as the heterim were in place before the siyum was necessarily happening, historically, which again seems to suggest that the one does not cause the other. I do see that in fact the Aruch HaShulchan seems to support you, as in Orech Chaim siman 669 si'if 2 he says in the middle of the piece: "And also we are accustomed that two are called up together and bless, and even though it is not correct in any event because of the joy of the siyum they do so ." - whereas I would have thought he should say the joy of Yom Tov. So the Aruch HaShulchan would seem to be supporting your position. But still, I cannot see, if the Aruch HaShulchan is saying this, how he can be correct, because the consequences must surely be that any time there is a siyum, such a heter would then be permissible, or at least tolerable. I just can't see how this is right. I cannot see how, even if the whole of klal yisrael this year decided that we were going to have a siyum on kriyas hatorah when we had had a full year since last lockdown (ie assuming a vaccine became widely available and was effective), somewhere in the middle of the year, it would it be mutar as part of holding that siyum on krias haTorah on an ordinary Shabbat, to have the usual Simchas Torah heterim. According to you it would be, but I cannot see that this can be right, and I struggle to believe the Rema would authorise it were he here today. <> Not really. Given that mishum simcha in the context of a Yom Tov is logically understood to mean simchas yom tov, without the modifier, the Rema is just explaining in greater detail why we do everything we do before. That *includes* holding the completion of the krias hatorah cycle on Simchas Torah. ie we arrange to have the siyum on Simchas Torah, *because* of the nature of Simchas Torah, not that Simchas Torah is the way it is because of the siyum of finishing the reading cycle. -Micha Gmar Tov Chana From zev at sero.name Wed Sep 23 17:48:28 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: On 23/9/20 6:37 pm, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an > avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas > Torah. But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion > would need to be had. Last year, when I was an avel, I was told that for Hoshanos I should not go around at all, and should lend my arba minim to someone else who hasn't got them, and have him go around in my place. (Or at least that's how I understood it; it may be that lending the arba minim was simply a suggestion to do someone a chesed, since I wasn't using them.) For Simchas Torah I was told that I could go around with the group, but should not hold a sefer torah while doing so; after the hakafa I could take a sefer and dance with it. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781 zev at sero.name "May this year and its curses end May a new year and its blessings begin" From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 25 05:07:22 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 12:07:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?What_foods_should_one_eat_at_the_seuda_?= =?windows-1252?q?ha=92mafsekes_=28last_meal=29_on_erev_Yom_Kippur=3F?= Message-ID: Please see https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/foods-one-eat-seuda-hamafsekes-last-meal-erev-yom-kippur/?category=yom-kippur&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shsh%20Haazinu%205781%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=32573763&spUserID=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&spJobID=1784317155&spReportId=MTc4NDMxNzE1NQS2 What foods should one eat at the seuda ha?mafsekes (last meal) on erev Yom Kippur? | OU Kosher Certification Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 608:4) writes that on erev Yom Kippur, one should eat light foods that are easily digestible, so one will be able to daven on Yom Kippur with proper concentration. There is a common custom to dip challah in honey. Mishnah... oukosher.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emteitz at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 13:32:06 2020 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 16:32:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What will be with Simchas Torah Message-ID: The comment was made, "Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to our private learning of the parshios, such as those who learned the parsha each week by reading it themselves from a chumash while the shuls were closed? Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv, . . ." It isn't? See OC 385:1. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Sep 29 05:08:16 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:08:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is an Esrog Muktza on Shabbos Message-ID: >From today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. This year, the first day of Sukkos is Shabbos, and there is no mitzvah of lulav and esrog. Can I show my neighbor my beautiful esrog, or is it muktza? Q. Shulchan Aruch (OC 658:2) writes that a lulav is muktzah on Shabbos. Since there is no mitzvah of lulav and esrog on Shabbos, a lulav serves no purpose, and it is mukztah like other tree branches. However, an esrog may be moved, since it has a function; one may smell the fruit. (There is a dispute if the beracha on fragrances is recited when smelling an esrog on Sukkos, since the primary function of an esrog on Sukkos is for the mitzvah of lulav and esrog and not for fragrance. To avoid the uncertainty of reciting a beracha, the Shulchan Aruch recommends not smelling an esrog on Sukkos. Nonetheless the Mishnah Berurah (658:5) writes there is no restriction to smell an esrog on Shabbos and recite a beracha, because there is no mitzvah on that day.) Since, it has a function, it is not muktza, and it may be moved for any purpose. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt?l (Shmiras Shabbos K?Hilchaso 22: note 62) writes that today, since people are protective of their esrogim and will not pass them around to be smelled, they are categorized as ?muktza machmas chisaron kis? (expensive or delicate items that are generally stored in a safe location), which may not be moved for any reason on Shabbos. The Aruch Hashulchan (OC 308:17) appears to rule this way as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 03:05:03 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 06:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: . I have long been bothered by why we cannot start or stop Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/geshem without a formal announcement , yet no announcements at all are required for starting and stopping any of the other changes to our tefilos. This past spring, in Avodah 38:24, I quoted a teshuva from Rav Hershel Schachter, where he tackled this question. (It is titled "Piskei Corona #9: Hallel on Pesach Night and Tefillas Tal". "Our Rav" refers to Rav JB Soloveitchik z"l; the parentheses are Rav Schachter's.) > There is a big difference between She'eila (V'sen Tal Umatar > Livracha) and Hazkara (Mashiv Haruach). See what I wrote in > the name of our Rav in MiPeninei HaRav (section Tefila, number > 5), that changing the descriptions of Hashem (from Mashiv > Haruach to Morid Hatal) requires Reshus Hatzibur, and an > individual is not allowed to make changes on his own. But I still don't understand what makes Mashiv Haruach so unusual. According to Rav Schachter's logic, shouldn't we also need Reshus Hatzibur to change the description of Hashem between HaKeil HaKadosh and HaMelech HaKadosh? Moreover, why is this Reshus Hatzibur required *every* *single* *time* that we start or stop Mashiv Haruach? Why isn't it sufficient that Chazal ordained that we start it every year on Shmini Atzeres, and stop it every year on Pesach? I once questioned how our Yom Tovim have any d'Oraisa status at all: If there's no Beis Din to declare that a certain day was Rosh Chodesh Tishrei, then where does Yom Kippur's status come from? The answer I got (Eliyahu Kitov, The Book of Our Heritage, v 1 pg 230) was that Hillel's beis din was mekadesh in *advance* all future Roshei Chadashim that would be calculated according to his rules. According to this reasoning, the required Reshus Hatzibur doesn't have to come from the gabbai or the chazan. It comes from Chazal, who ordained this schedule of changes to the Amidah, so when the calendar says to make a change, my requirement to do so comes automatically, whether I'm in shul or not, just like for all the other changes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Sep 30 12:02:34 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:02:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] fear of death Message-ID: Sheldon Solomon is a social psychologist at Skidmore College. He earned his B.A. from Franklin and Marshall College and his doctoral degree from the University of Kansas. He is best known for developing terror management theory, along with Jeff Greenberg and Tom Pyszczynski which is concerned with how humans deal with their own sense of mortality Sheldon Solomon - "I feel like there's a real sense in which doing these studies and writing books and lecturing has been my way of avoiding directly confronting my anxieties by turning it (me - fear of death) into an intellectual exercise" [Me - sounds like it could've been said by R'Chaim] Is this a common approach in orthodox circles Gmar tov 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 llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 30 06:10:27 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:10:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Question for Today's Times Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May one fulfill the mitzvah of picking up their lulav and esrog while wearing gloves? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 651:7) writes that if a person wrapped a cloth around their hand and picked up the lulav, some say one has not fulfilled the mitzvah. This is because the cloth is a chatzitza (barrier) between the hand and the lulav. The Mishnah Berurah (651:33) writes that the same applies if one is wearing gloves. He also explains that the reason Shulchan Aruch writes ?some say?, is because this is a matter of dispute among Rishonim. The opinion of the Ran is that if one wrapped their hands with cloth or put on gloves, the cloth is viewed as an extension of one?s hand, and as such, it is not a barrier. Therefore, if one did pick up the lulav while wearing gloves, the lulav should be lifted again to fulfill the mitzvah in accordance with those who view the glove as a chatziza. However, a new beracha would not be said because the mitzvah was already fulfilled according to the Ran. One who must wear gloves in shul should recite the berachos and shake the lulav at home before coming to shul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Jul 1 05:12:56 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:12:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ben Noach and mitzvas kiddush hashem Message-ID: <043501d64fa0$f4d21a60$de764f20$@touchlogic.com> I believe a few issues ago someone asked if benei noach are obligated in mitzvas kiddush hashem (to be moser nefesh to avoid their 7 mitzvos, as we are obligated wrt murder/arayos/AZ) See toldos Noah at length on this subject. Pg. 247-270 Email offline if you want scans.. Are they commanded in mitzvas kiddush hashem (no - rambam) Are they allowed to be moser nefesh for mitzvas kiddush hashem (machlokes) Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid killing someone (machlokes) Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid abortion. q etc From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 1 09:40:03 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 16:40:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux Message-ID: I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? 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 mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Jul 1 15:31:10 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:31:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status Message-ID: <052501d64ff7$52b1d1b0$f8157510$@touchlogic.com> https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/kosher-appliances/467/shattered-dre ams/ ... What is induction cooking? Induction cooking is a revolutionary energy efficient way of cooking without heat. How do you cook without heat? The answer is with electro-magnetic energy. The conventional burner is replaced with a coil of tightly wound copper wire under the glass cooktop. Turning on the "burner" sends electro-magnetic energy through the coil. If you placed your hand on the coil area, you would feel nothing. If you placed an aluminum pan on the same area you would still feel nothing. However, by placing an iron skillet or a pot with an iron core or magnetized stainless steel on the cooktop, the magnetized skillet completes the magnetic connection and the electro-magnetic field of energy transfers directly into the pan. This causes the iron molecules to move very rapidly, giving off heat. In turn, the cookware cooks the food. Lifting the pan off of the cooktop breaks the magnetic connection, and you will no longer be cooking. The cooktop will be heated by the "magnetic" pot or pan, but it does not get hot from the coil. Consequently, any spill onto the ceramic cooktop surface will be a result of an irui kli rishon, spillage from a hot pot, not a heated cooktop as you would have in conventional cooking. Hence, if one would want to kasher the cooktop, it could be accomplished by a lesser means of kasherization, irui kli rishon.10 Although induction cooking offers a koshering benefit, the cooktop cannot be used on Shabbos or Yom Yov because the cooking connection is made once the pot is put onto the coil area. Similarly, one would not be able to remove the pot from the cooktop on Shabbos or Yom Tov because one would be "disconnecting" the magnetic field by removing the pot. While the ability to kasher an induction cooktop is an advantage, the disadvantage of not being able to use it on Shabbos or Yom Tov makes this cooktop impractical, unless one has more than one cooktop in the kitchen (an induction for during the week, and a non-induction for Shabbos and Yom Tov). As with every new advent of technology, one balabusta's dream is another balabusta's nightmare. From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 03:43:44 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:43:44 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 3:00 PM Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was > forbidden. So at least for Ashkenazim this whole issue should not > exist. Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut. > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for the gezeira seem to apply. Even for Sephardim, since the SA is meikel in seif 4 in the case of servants in a beit yisrael. Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 15:43:22 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:43:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:27:08AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > RMB writes: >> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and that >> the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / minhag she'eino >> chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done. > So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b: > Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, v'Rav > Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: > Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? People practice like REbY. Why? R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example of BY chalaq R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah I presume you would say something like: R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: it'r universal pesaq R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something entirely different? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. Author: Widen Your Tent - Rachel Levin Varnhagen - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From cantorwolberg at cox.net Thu Jul 2 05:57:12 2020 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:57:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Something to Ponder Message-ID: To paraphrase this profound statement below by R? Yitzchok from the Talmud R.H. (16b) which is quite timely: Any year that begins without the straightforward, clear and unequivocal tekiya, will sadly end with the wavering sound of defeat ? the terua. ??"? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 05:12:53 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:12:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: . In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this is the one I want to ask about.) > The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation > of Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana > (danger). Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the > Mishnah, shuls were located outside of the cities where it was > not safe to be alone at night. The Rabbis were concerned that > people who came late to shul might be left alone while finishing > to daven. To give latecomers a chance to catch up and finish > davening with everyone else, Chazal extended the davening by > adding Mei'ein Sheva. I've heard this same explanation many times from many sources, but I've never understood it. Mei'ein Sheva is shorter than a single page in most siddurim - does its presence really lengthen the service significantly? If the shuls were outside the cities, it must have taken a certain amount of time to get home, and even to get to the outskirts of the city. Were the latecomers unable to catch up to their neighbors? Were the on-time people unwilling to stay in shul for the one or two minutes needed for the latecomers to finish? If this problem was sufficiently significant for Chazal to enact this measure, there were probably several latecomers every week, not just a single latecomer now and then. If so, couldn't the latecomers simply wait for each other, even if the on-time people rushed to get home? There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better? Thank you in advance. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 07:14:04 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:14:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200702141404.GB25994@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 01:43:44PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was > > forbidden.... > > exist. Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut. > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and > pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh" > it includes any form of cooking by heat... Or, any form of cooking by fire, whether broiling, roasting or boiling or frying in water or oil that are heated by fire. For an example that predates the taqaah, solar cooking. Does a rishon deal with the question of eating an egg cooked in the sand that was placed there by a non-Jew? And, as I opened in my first response, it's not just the Rama; "al ha'eish" and variants are common in the discussion. I don't think it's an Ashkenazi thing, just because the SA doesn't use the idiom himself. > That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a > Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for > the gezeira seem to apply.... The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for refu'ah beShabbos. Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking via fire. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, http://www.aishdas.org/asp eventually it will rise to the top. Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 2 07:13:40 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:13:40 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> > RMB wrote: >> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and >> that the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / >> minhag she'eino chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done. And I wrote: > So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b: > Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, > v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: > Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? <> Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim. If you were having a shiur about the halacha of meat, it would be remiss of you to mention the one, and not the other. And if you were giving a shiur to both Ashkenazim and Sephardim, I hope you would say - CYLOR [the L of course standing for "local"], rather than saying "we pasken" one way or the other. Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel, you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like. There are other opinions, and they might have been brought, but the end of the shiur would say - follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov, whereas I would hope that would not be what you would say regarding BY chalaq. <> But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>. Glatt is a tricky one, because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin. And the question then comes down to, why is it that someone keeps glatt, is it because he wants to be machmir for those who think it is really following the BY's iqur hadin, or is it because that is what his community does. If he is just doing it because he lives with other Hungarians so does it, but he really thinks the Rema is right, and it is a chumra that the people came up with (which you can argue it is, particularly because glatt is not the same as BY chalak) then it is a minhag garua. But if the community does it because they are really holding like the BY (at least to an extent), despite the Rema, I would say it is a minhag chashuv. I thought the better example of what you were saying is milchigs on Shavuos, which has no Rav psak behind it, but which has Rabbinic approval in the form of the Rema. That shows the distinction between what I thought you were arguing and what I am much more clearly. Ie that according to you minhag chashuv has no Rabbinic psak source, it is something the people came up with, but it is a religious practice that the Rabbis then approved, whereas I am saying that for a minhag chashuv to be a minhag chashuv, there needs to be a rabbinic psak that the people are relying on, even if other communities hold differently. And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, and the community then followed. It is not some religious idea, like milchigs on Shavuos, that the community came up with independently and then was approved. If R' Eliezer or Rabbi Meir had never paskened the way they did, then the minhag would never have arisen. That, I thought, was the fundamental distinction between what I am saying and you are saying. That I was saying to be a minhag chashuv, it has to be originally Rav psak derived, that people then followed. Whereas I understood you as saying that a psak is a psak, and different from a minhag chashuv, which had to be people derived, ie bottom up, albeit with Rav approval post fact. And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag? <> But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good thing. Especially as we discussing what are needed for an eruv (a halachic device), or whether the kohanim should duchan during Mincha and nei'ila of Yom Kippur. These aren't things like going around with baskets on your head, or squeezing fruit. They are religious acts. <> Yes. << R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq>> Yes, although I prefer to phrase it the psak that the people as a community [I prefer that to the term "local" as it sounds limited, while communities can be large or small] have adopted following Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, or Rabbi Meir [out of the options available], making it the minhag chashuv. <> I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in psak. To the point where their psak is not a valid psak. The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. Regarding R' Yochanan I believe I am following Rashi. Both Rashi, Tosfos and the Rosh refer us to Ta'anis 26b where it explains that if it is the halacha, you teach it "b'pirka" - ie you learn it out in the public halachic discussions. If it is minhag, you don't teach it b'pirka, but if someone comes to you and asks, you posken that way, and where it says nahagu - one does not rule this way, just "I avid, avid, v'lo mehadrinan lei". And Rashi in Ta'anis, says: U'man d'amar nahagu [ie Rabbi Yochanan] - mashma: hen nohagu me'alehen, aval aino ikar. Uminhag mashmar - Torat minhag yesh b'davar, uminhag kosher hu. The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher. That rather sounds like either it is a minhag taus [which in Yerushalmi speak is aino minhag, such as not working all motzei shabbas, even though this is clearly a religious practice] or a norm that has halachic impact. But it should not be dignified with the name minhag. However over in Eruvin Rashi (quoted approvingly there by Tosfos and the Rosh) uses the language - aval i avide lo machinan byadayhu - ie if they do it, we don't protest. That sounds much more like the minhagim that the Tosfos and the Rosh were discussing in Pesachim as being minhag lo chasuv (ie tolerated, and not gone against in front of, ie you are not to rule publically in front of them, but you don't actually have to keep), which is contrasted to a minhag chasuv. Tosfos in Brachos 52b (d"h nahagu ha'am) draws a different distinction between the situation over in Ta'anis and in Eruvin (and elsewhere, such as Rosh Hashana) and the situation in Brachos where Rabbi Yochanan again says nahagu ha'am [like Beis Hillel in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda - the subject matter being whether we say the blessing over the spices before or after the blessing over the flame in havdala]. Because we [and I think we all in fact, as Tosfos says] l'chatchila go according to this R' Yochanan that we make the blessing over the spices before the flame, and yet it would seem from Eruvin 62b (as understood by Ta'anis) that l'chatchila one shouldn't follow where it says nahagu ha'am, just that where the people are so accustomed, we don't make them go back if they did it wrong (so in the case of the havdala, one would think one should really bless the flame first, and then the spices, just if people did it the other way around, we wouldn't make them repeat havdala). And Tosfos' answer there in Brochos is that over in Eruvin, the nahagu ha'am is contrasted to someone saying "halacha" which means "halacha l'chatchila u'morin ken" and therefore when somebody else says nahagu they are meaning bideved, "aval hacha yachol l'hios d'ain kan ele nahagu greida". Note however that in the case in Brachos everybody agrees the halacha is like Beis Hillel (versus Beis Shammai). The issue at stake is how to understand Beis Hillel - like Rabbi Yehuda or like Rabbi Meir. And while Rabbi Meir would seem to be the stam mishna, we follow Rabbi Yehuda. That feels to me less "al pi Talmud chacham" - it is more how the relevant Talmud Chacham understood another set of talmudei chachamim. Whereas the case in Eruvin 62b is regarding what R' Eliezer ben Yaa'kov himself held (regarding non-Jews assuring a courtyard for eruv purposes, if there was only one Jew) versus Rabbi Meir, or in Eruvin 72 (do you need a shituf and an eruv), or Ta'anis (whether on Yom Kippur the Kohanim should bless at Mincha and ne'ila) ie is a matter of direct psak versus psak. With the sense that according to Rabbi Yochanan the psak in question is plain wrong, and knowledgeable people should ignore it. I think you could thus alternatively argue that Brachos is a classic minhag garua that happened to accord with how Rabbi Yehuda understood Beis Hillel, which in the absence of a clear psak either way, we follow the order the people decided upon, for their own reasons, whereas in the other cases, it is a minhag taus, that the psak is clearly wrong in halachic terms, but because there is this da'as yachid position out there, the hachamim were not prepared, in bideved situations, to make people go back and redo. Or you can say that actually over in Brachos Rabbi Yochanan, while using the term nahagu ha'am, given that it was not used in contrast to minhag k', meant really to say minhag k' - making it a minhag chashuv. Or maybe in fact we just ignore Rabbi Yochanan's expression. And what we are actually following is the ma'ase shehaya of Rava. In any event, for me the key fact is the Rav Huna defines minhag explicitly as going according to a psak, something you, I believe, said couldn't happen. How you understand Rabbi Yochanan, who specifically does not use the term minhag, just nagu ha'am for something which (leaving aside the situation in Brachos) he disapproves of, is secondary. -Micha Regards Chana From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 07:36:54 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:36:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:13:40PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote: >> Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, >> v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: >> Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? >> <> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example >> of BY chalaq > Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is not > what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim... You totally lost me. Neither Shemu'el's nor R Yehudah's "we" are Askenazim or Separadim. ... > Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we > pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel, > you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben > Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like... We are in agreement. >> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt > But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common religious > practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>... Which is exactly what I have R Huna saying here. The actual halakhah is lenient, the hamon am in practice are nohagim to be stringent like REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the stringency. It's not din, but it's a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval -- a minhag chashuv. > Glatt is a tricky one, because of > the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin... Still, Hungarians are following it as minhag, and are more lenient than the Sepharadi half of the world BECAUSE it is "just" minhag. To them. The issue you raise is a distraction from explaining the gemara. > And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely > and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi > Meir, and the community then followed... > And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as > expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' > Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario, > and yet it has the definition of minhag? After the rabbinate said you didn't have to. So in that sense it is "bottom up". The masses chose to do something extrahalachic. >> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah > But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a > minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good > thing.... By "common" hanhagah tovah I meant in contrast to any kind of minhag. Something many pious people do, not the masses. Like learning all night on Shavuos in Lithuania circa 1890. But in principle, even if R Huna meant everyone was doing it: Why would hanhagah tovah mean that the rabbis endorsed it? And I think you then agree with this "in princple, when you write: >> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He >> can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi >> talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something >> entirely different? > I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact > something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a > non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in > certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are > accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The point being here, is > that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in > psak. To the point where their psak is not a valid psak. The problem > being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and > have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. R Yochanan can say something is a hanhagah tovah and not a pesaq nor even an actual minhag. > The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice > with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher... Which according to me is what "minhag garua" means. Whereas you're saying that R Yochanan refers to it as a hanhagah, but is not calling it a minhag garua. Despite the common shoresh. So we agree on w to understand this machloqes, we disagree with what to call each position. To me, Shemu'el and R Yehudah, by talking about pesaq aren't talking about minhag chashuv. To you there are. R Huna is definitely talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq. Which to me is a minhag chashuv and to you a minhag garua. And R Yochanan is talking about a practies that doesn't rise up to that level. Which to me is a minhag garua and to you not even that much. It's all just in the labels, but that changes how we read the rishonim. That is why I ignored all the gemaras you cited that don't use the /nhg/ shoresh. The rest of your post argues for something we agree about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. http://www.aishdas.org/asp All that is left to us is Author: Widen Your Tent to be as human as possible while we are here. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From zev at sero.name Thu Jul 2 08:08:02 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 11:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking > and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul > shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking > with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the food gets hot of its own accord. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 2 11:51:19 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:51:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <003001d650a1$c6ab7350$540259f0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: >> <> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example >> of BY chalaq > Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is > not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim... <> You wrote the words "parallel to my example of BT chalaq" - see above. I responded to *your* example of BY chalaq - because you said that "R' Yehuda amar Shemuel: that's what we pasken - is parallel to my example of BY chalaq" I totally agree that neither Shemuel's nor R' Yehuda's "we" are Ashenazim or Sephardim - but *you* said that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is parallel to your example of BY chalaq (which you contrasted to glatt), and BY chalaq versus glatt is about Ashkenazim and Sephardim. If you agree that BY chalaq is not a parallel, then there is no need for this discussion. But because of the parallel that you brought, I couldn't (and can't) see how you can make the statement below (which you say you agree with): > Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is > what we pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda > amar Shemuel, you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow > R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like... If we agree that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is *not* parallel to BY chalaq, then we can agree we understand R'Yehuda amar Shmuel the same. >> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like >> glatt > But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common > religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>... <> Err, ReBY is actually the lenient one (he says you need two Jews living in a chatzer to assur it for carrying). Rabbi Meir is the stringent one (he says you only need one Jew and the chatzer is assur). So transposing your explanation, but with the correct way round, do you agree that, "the actual halacha is strict, the hamon am are in practice nohagim to be lenient like REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the leniency. It is not din, but it is a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval - a minhag chasuv"? Now do you think that if the people did not have ReBY to rely on, but had just come up with this by themselves, against the halacha of Rabbi Meir, Rav Huna would be so tolerant? If yes, then why did he phrase it as minhag k'RebY? Why didn't he say that if there is only one Jew in the courtyard, the minhag is to carry (because it doesn't' matter whether ReBY said so or not)? But if it *does* matter that ReBY said so, then you need more than just the people coming up with this idea of only one Jew living on the chatzer themselves. You need ReBY, or some other Rav, to have said so, followed by community acceptance to have it become a minhag. > Glatt is a tricky one, > because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin... > And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as > expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' > Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated > scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag? <> There were two different piskei halacha out there. ReBY (the lenient one) and R' Meir (the stringent one). R' Yehuda amar Shmuel states emphatically that ReBY is right, Halachically, and that the halacha is like him. R' Huna appears not to agree, otherwise he would have said what R' Yehuda amar Shemuel said. Rather, he accepts that the people having made the choice to go for the lenient position as a valid minhag. It is partially bottom up in that the people have made a choice between Psak A and Psak B, and decided to follow Psak A, in this case the lenient psak, but I do not believe they have decided to do something extrahalachic independent of there being two piskei halacha out there. It is the same scenario as following R' Yossi for milk and chicken, or Rabbi Eliezer for cutting the wood to make the knife to do the bris on shabbas. Or moving a lit candle on shabbas. Or working or not working erev pesach morning. Each case is the same underlying scenario: there were a range of piskei halacha out there. And certain communities, or sometimes the whole people, decided to follow one psak over another (even though in pure halachic terms that isn't necessarily the halacha). That is what makes it a minhag chasuv, as articulated by the Ri and the Rosh, ie that it is al pi Talmud chacham, and not just something the people came up with on their own, even where the people can provide religious justification. RMB: >> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah Chana: > But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a > minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a > good thing.... <> *Hanhaga tova* is *your* language, not mine. I assume you mean R' Yochanan here, not R' Huna, because you are the one who applied the words hanhaga tova to R' Yochanan in a previous post. I don't at all think that R' Yochanan is describing what he thinks of as a "hanhaga tova". I think (and I believe Rashi and Tosfos agree with me) that in this context if you have to use the term hanhaga, then he believes he is describing a hanhaga ra. <> No idea what you mean here. >> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? >> He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY >> is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to >> mine or something entirely different? > I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact > something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a > non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish > people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things > people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The > point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is > actually flat out wrong in psak. To the point where their psak is not > a valid psak. The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the > people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. <> He could, but in the context, where he is dealing with a situation where there is a lenient psak and a stringent psak, and where the people are going according to the lenient psak, he is clearly not saying that. He is saying it wrong what the people are doing, but if you come across somebody who has done it, they either don't have to reverse what they have done, or you don't need to create a fuss (as they have what he considers a da'as yachid to rely on). Depending on which Rashi you follow (and presumably Rashi/Tosfos in Eruvin had a different girsa in Ta'anis, given that they don't quote "not reversing", but "not protesting"). > The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this > practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher... <> Hanhaga was, as mentioned, your language, not mine. I said that one interpretation of Rabbi Yochanan is a minhag garua - that is if you hold that it is something that one shouldn't protest. Just like all the other cases in Pesachim where the rabbis said not to protest the minhagim. However if it is something one should protest, just that one doesn't make people do things again (ie our girsa in Ta'anis), then that appears to be less than a minhag garua (more like a minhag taus). <> No, I don't think so. <> No, I never said that, and I don't think so. In the case of Shmuel and R Yehuda we are talking about psak. <> No. To me what R' Huna is talking about is also minhag chashuv. I didn't think you agreed with that, but am fine if you do. If you agree that this is a minhag chashuv, then it would seem that what we disagree about is whether or not Rav Huna is "talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq". You say definitely, ie "definitely talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq". I don't think this is right at all. I believe Rav Huna is talking about a common practice performed by the people *in light of ReBY's psak* Which is precisely why he phrases it as "minhag k'ReBY". Because the fact that there was a psak from ReBY is critical to his understanding. It is what makes it a minhag choshuv (and not a minhag garua). Just as the Ri and the Rosh and the Shach say that the definition of a minhag chasuv is that it is "al pi talmid chacham". This is "al pi talmid chacham" - the psak of ReBY, which is key to what drove the people. No ReBY, no such minhag. And R' Huna is expressing this clearly by linking the minhag with the psak of ReBY. <> Not quite. If we didn't have the girsa we do in Ta'anis, ie we had the girsa that Rashi and Tosfos in Eruvin seem to have had, I would say this was a minhag garua. Problem is, our girsa in Ta'anis doesn't just say, we don't protest, but we don't make them do over again or go back (given that in Ta'anis we are talking about kohanim duchaning at nei'lah, presumably that means we don't have the Shatz resay the non duchaning language, after the kohanim have ostensibly duchened, or make the kohanim sit down once they have said the bracha). That suggests that we do in fact protest if we can get to them before they get started duchening. I don't think something that the chachamim were prepared to protest, even if the view they are protesting is based on the psak of a Talmud Chacham, can be considered any kind of minhag, except perhaps a minhag taus. <> I agree it is all in the labels, but I thought there was something more fundamental here. My understanding of your position was that if the people were following a particular psak (such as the people following the psak of ReBY or the people following the psak of Rabbi Yehuda not to work on the morning of erev pesach), that could not be called minhag. Rathein your view minhag, including minhag choshuv, had to be something that was generated by the people themselves, like milchigs on Shavuos, ie completely bottom up. That is why I could not see how you characterised what R' Huna said, of minhag k'ReBY as minhag, as it didn't seem to fit. Whereas my understanding of a minhag chashuv was that it needed to have at its root a psak of a Rav, with the bottom up aspect of it being the people's, or a community of people's, decision to take on that particular psak, even in the face of disagreement from other Rabbonim. That seems to fit perfectly with Rav Huna's statement of minhag k'ReBY. I thus understand a completely bottom up minhag as falling within the category of minhag garua (or just minhag)- although even within that category, there are those that have strong rabbinic approval, and those that have weak to non-existent rabbinic approval (depending on how garua they are). But like your minhag chashuv, my minhag garua does have to relate to something religious/halachic, even though at some point one reaches a situation where the rabbis come out full force against what the people are doing. The reason I am so vague about the line between minhag garua and minhag taus, is that this line seems very difficult to define, Ie at what point does a minhag which is very garua tip into a minhag taus seems hard for me to pinpoint (I have been looking at two cases of very dodgy minhagim, namely women in states of tuma'ah - both involving, inter alia, women not going to shul - one during their periods, and one in the period after giving birth, and the attitudes towards them couldn't be more different. The one is reasonably accepted as something of an acceptable minhag, with some rabbinic blessing, even though the origins are difficult, and it is clear it is solely women generated, while the other gets the full minhag taus, must be stamped out, treatment, at least amongst some. Even though on first glance they would seem to be directly parallel). While you, I thought given that you characterised what I called minhag garua as being minhag chasuv, understood minhag garua as being something done even by non-Jews that had halachic impact, which didn't seem to me to be what was being discussed in the gemora in Pesachim at any point, and hence not the subject of the Ri and Rosh's distinction there. -Micha Regards Chana From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 14:38:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 17:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: free public transport on Shabbos/Yomtov In-Reply-To: <004401d644dc$61126e20$23374a60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004401d644dc$61126e20$23374a60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200702213852.GD25994@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 08:20:35PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > There are a fair number of shops, but there are a fair number of houses too > (and some blocks of flats, definitely majority Jewish). We know people who > live in a couple of the houses right on Golders Green road... A balebatishe comment: It needn't be people right on the road, though. Bus lines are routed to serve neighborhoods. Even if it were a street entirely of shops and other commercial enterprises, a route would take into account any residential areas that are in easy walking distance to any stops. Which is certainly true of what I remember from Golder's Green Road. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless http://www.aishdas.org/asp he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. Author: Widen Your Tent Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 15:23:32 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:23:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 00:29 Zev Sero via Avodah, wrote: > On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking > > and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul > > shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking > > with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. > > Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. > The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the > food gets hot of its own accord. > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and metal heated by a magnetic field? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 15:45:36 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:45:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <20200702141404.GB25994@aishdas.org> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Simon Montagu Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 01:44 Subject: Re: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status To: Micha Berger On Thu, 2 Jul 2020, 17:14 Micha Berger, wrote: > > The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't > apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for > refu'ah beShabbos. > > Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the > gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their > motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking > via fir > Lo p'log is not a universal. There are plenty of cases where hazal and the pos'kim explore in which scenarios gezeirot are or are not relevant (as opposed to implementation details in what is essentially the same situation, such as pianos or violins on shabbat). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 15:58:34 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:58:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais haVaad] Police Protection: Are Officers Liable for Injuries They Inflict? Message-ID: <20200702225834.GA17037@aishdas.org> I think this topic has crossed all of our minds lately. >From https://www.baishavaad.org/police-protection-are-officers-liable-for-injuries-they-inflict/ Tir'u baTov! -Micha The Bais HaVaad Halacha Center Police Protection: Are Officers Liable for Injuries They Inflict? Adapted from the writings of Dayan Yitzhak Grossman July 2, 2020 On June 12, Atlanta Police Department officers Garrett Rolfe and Devin Brosnan were attempting to handcuff Rayshard Brooks and arrest him for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Brooks wrestled with the officers, seized Brosnan's Taser, and attempted to flee. With Rolfe pursuing him, Brooks turned and fired the Taser toward Rolfe. Rolfe then shot at Brooks three times, striking him twice in the back and killing him. Rolfe was subsequently charged with felony murder and ten other offenses. In considering Rolfe's possible culpability for killing Brooks, the first issue is whether the shooting was justified as self-defense. We do not consider here this specific question, but only the general question of the liability of a duly authorized agent of the state for the use of force resulting in injury or death. Agents of the court In the Mishnah, Abba Sha'ul rules that a father who strikes his son, a teacher who disciplines his student, and an agent of the court, who accidentally kill, are not subject to the law of exile (galus).[1] The Tosefta rules similarly with regard to civil liability for nonlethal injury: The father, the teacher, and the agent of the court are all exempt, unless the force used is "more than is appropriate," in which case they are liable.[2] An alternate formulation appears elsewhere in the Tosefta: The agent is exempt if he injures inadvertently (b'shogeg), but liable if he injures deliberately (b'meizid), "out of concern for tikun olam."[3] R' Shimon ben Tzemach Duran explains that these two formulations are equivalent: If the force used is "appropriate" but nevertheless results in injury, the agent is considered shogeg, but if it is "more than is appropriate," he is considered meizid. He also explains that the liability in the case of meizid is in accordance with the normal laws of torts, and the concern for tikun olam is the rationale for the exemption of shogeg, i.e., Chazal absolved a shogeg from liability despite the principle of adam muad l'olam, by which people are usually held liable for torts committed b'shogeg.[4] It would seem that according to this approach, "shogeg" here has its general meaning of an act that while inadvertent, nevertheless has an element of negligence to it, and so would engender liability were it not for the concern for tikun olam, since it would seem absurd for an agent of the court who carried out his duty entirely properly to be liable for its consequences (were it not for tikun olam), any more than the court itself and its agents would be liable as tortfeasors for the very imposition of punishment such as lashes or execution upon a miscreant![5] In apparent contradiction to the assumption of the Tosefta that an agent of the court is not authorized to use more force than necessary to carry out his duty stands a ruling of Rabbeinu Yerucham ben Meshulam, accepted by some poskim, that an agent of the court who strikes the body or damages the property of a recalcitrant person is exempt even if he was able to accomplish his goal by other means.[6] It seems that this opinion understands that the availability of nonviolent means does not automatically render the use of violence "more than is appropriate." Thus in Rabbeinu Yerucham's case, although alternative nonviolent means were available, once the agent chose to utilize violence, the level of force he used was the minimum necessary to accomplish his goal, whereas in the case of the Tosefta, the level of force utilized was gratuitously high. Alternatively, some contemporary writers consider it self-evident that Rabbeinu Yerucham concedes that the authorities have no right to use "excessive" and "unreasonable" force relative to the goal of preserving the rule of law.[7] Perhaps, then, when the Tosefta assigns liability where the force used was "more than is appropriate," it is referring to just such "excessive" and "unreasonable" force. In any event, other poskim disagree with Rabbeinu Yerucham's ruling and maintain that an agent of the court is only exempt from liability for the use of force if he had no other means to achieve his goal.[8] The exemption of an agent of the court only applies provided force was used in order to compel compliance with the court's directives, but not when motivated by anger.[9] Some contemporary writers assume that a police officer would have the same status as the "agent of the court" discussed by Chazal and would therefore be exempt from liability insofar as his use of force was appropriate. __________________________________________________________________ [1]Makkos 2:2. Cf. Rambam and Ra'avad Hilchos Rotzeiach Ushmiras Hanefesh 5:6, and Bnei V'lechem Yehudah, Bnei Shmuel, Gur Aryeh, Hamei'ir La'aretz, Kruv Mimshach, Ma'asei Rokeach, Mirkeves Hamishneh, Ein Tarshish, and Shufrei D'Yaakov ibid.; Shu"t Shevus Yaakov cheilek 3 siman 140; R. Yehuda Zoldan, Tzidkas Yehuda V'Yisrael, siman 6 os 1; R. Moshe Taragin, Shliach Bais Din Sheharag Beshogeg. One version of the Tosefta contains a position contrary to that of Abba Sha'ul; see Or Sameiach Hilchos Rotzeiach 5:6 and Tzidkas Yehuda V'Yisrael ibid. [2]Tosefta Bava Kama 9:3. [3]Ibid. Gittin 3:13. [4]Shu"t Tashbatz cheilek 3 siman 82. [5]This is certainly true according to the poskim that maintain that the principle of adam muad l'olam does not apply to oness gamur (see Tosafos Bava Kama 27b s.v. uShmuel amar; Shulchan Aruch C.M. 378:1-3 and Shach ibid. s.k. 1). [6]Sefer Maysharim Nesiv 31 cheilek 2 p. 92 second column, cited by Sema C.M. siman 8 s.k. 25 and Ba'er Heitev ibid. s.k. 8. [7]Adv. Yaakov Shapiro and Dr. Michael Vigoda, Shimush B'choach al Yedei Hamishtarah, n. 33. [8]Toras Chaim Bava Kama end of daf 28; Shevus Yaakov cheilek 1 siman 180, cited in Pis'chei Teshuvah ibid. s.k. 6; Sha'ar Mishpat ibid. s.k. 2; Aruch Hashulchan ibid. se'if 6; Yeshuos Yisrael ibid. Ein Mishpat s.k. 2 and Chukas Hamishpat s.k. 6. Erech Shai ibid. se'if 5 concludes that the matter is a s'feika d'dina. Cf. Halacha Pesukah ibid. p. 86 n. 214. [9]Shu"t Ra'anach (Yerushalayim 5720) siman 111 p. 475. Cf. Shevus Ya'akov cheilek 3 end of siman 140 and Shimush B'choach al Yedei Hamishtarah. From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 16:02:21 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:02:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200702230221.GA7250@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 01:23:32AM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: >> Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. >> The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the >> food gets hot of its own accord. > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and > metal heated by a magnetic field? I believe Zev is saying that the induction cooker doesn't cause any metal to glow. However, when you cook on an old-school electric stove, the coil will glow. And glowing is included in "eish". (I'm not sure about the last part. I think it would depend on whether causing a gachales shel mateches is bishul or havarah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. http://www.aishdas.org/asp Life is about creating yourself. Author: Widen Your Tent - George Bernard Shaw - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From zev at sero.name Thu Jul 2 17:03:56 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 20:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: On 2/7/20 6:23 pm, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > Glowing hot metal is included in "fire".? Here there is no fire at all. > The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the > food gets hot of its own accord. > > > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and > metal heated by a magnetic field? The pot or pan doesn't get nearly hot enough to qualify as fire. It doesn't have to, since it's heating the food directly, rather than heating a pot sitting on top of it, which will then heat the food it contains. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Thu Jul 2 17:02:12 2020 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 00:02:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Realities of Times Past (Was: Latecomers to shul on Friday night) Message-ID: R?Akiva Miller asks (38/54) a typically thoughtful question about adding Magen Avot on Friday night. The reasoning and realities are difficult to understand, he notes, and so he asks, ?There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better?? I don?t have any answers for him but I have similar questions about reasons given for other changes in halacha. For example, we don?t blow shofar on RH that falls on Shabbat (thus missing out on a Biblical commandment) because of three maybes: (a) maybe someone will be blowing who doesn?t know how to do do properly, (b) maybe that will happen on a Shabbat RH, and (c) maybe that person will carry the shofar in a reshut harabim to an expert for instruction. Well, how often would that occur? Was this common in those days? And if so, why? It?s not common today for shofar blowers to go to experts on RH to give them instruction. And equally difficult fir me to understand, wasn?t there some other way to prevent the triple maybe sin of carrying other than making all the Jewish people for generations on end miss out on a once a year biblical commandment.? Was society so different that this was really an otherwise unmanageable problem at the time the ruling was put into effect? To paraphrase Akiva, there?s something that I'm missing about the realities of that time; can anyone explain the reasoning better? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From marty.bluke at gmail.com Fri Jul 3 00:13:36 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 10:13:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop Message-ID: R? Simon Montagu asked: > That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a > Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for > the gezeira seem to apply.... This would seem to be a classic case of davar shebminyan tzorich minyan acher lhatiro which we don?t have. There are many gezeras that we observe today even though the reason behind the gezera no longer applies. For example, taking medicine on shabbos is prohibited because you may grind the ingredients. In today?s world of pills the reason no longer applies yet most poskim still prohibit taking pills for something like a headache. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:17:50 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 17:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200706211750.GA10250@aishdas.org> Someone pointed me to https://www.torahbase.org/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%A0%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D See section 6. R' Asher Weid isn't comfortable have a nakhri cook for you by microwave. Something I had thought was pretty commonly accepted. In this case, he allws, but only because the situation that required getting a housekeeper to cook is a she'as hadechaq, and because hiring a Jewish housekeeper would be a hotza'ah merubah. Only adding the lack of aish as a yeish le'ayein and is willing to use it as an additional "chazi le'itztarufei". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he http://www.aishdas.org/asp brought an offering. But to bring an offering, Author: Widen Your Tent you must know where to slaughter and what - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 01:31:54 2020 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:31:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Realities of Times Past (Was: Latecomers to shul on Friday night) Message-ID: Fellow Ovedim have (IIRC at the behest of RAM who asked the question) been wondering why Tefillat Me'eyn Sheva' is said on Friday evenings. RJK particularly cited RAM: > "The reasoning and realities are difficult to understand," he notes, " > and so," he asks: "There's something that I'm missing about the > realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they > davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain > the story better?" There may be a clue in an article by Jacob Mann. Jacob Mann was, as far as I can reconstruct, a Pzsworsker Chassid who loved Judaism and learning, but upon landing the USA possibly tragically aligned himself with the wrong crowd. But this is just a reconstruction. For all I know, him publishing a bunch of articles in the Reform"Hebrew Union College Annual" may have been because it was in his eyes the most widespread scholarly publication, one that would afford him the most exposure. Interestingly, he insisted on transliterating Hebrew into Ashkenazi pronunciation, and HUCA agreed. At any rate, he was a pretty interesting historian of liturgy and may have been on to certain things correctly. In an article entitled Changes in the Divine Service of the Synagogue due to Persecution, he brings evidence for several periods of anti Jewish persecutions in which certain prayers or practices were prohibited, giving rise to creative solutions. Though he does not deal with Me'eyn Sheva' (as far as I remember), the setting seems to work well. Perhaps Me'eyn Sheva came from a time when Jews had to pray outside the settlements, because they were praying in hiding, and thus had to watch out for each other's safety. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 03:59:50 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:59:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status Message-ID: Rav Hershel Schachter has a fascinating essay in his Sefer about when we say lo plug by gezeros and when not. It has been a while but I believe he says that gezeros are all lo plug except if the reason was written into the nusach of the gezera. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 13:16:24 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 16:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200707201624.GE25868@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 01:59:50PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Rav Hershel Schachter has a fascinating essay in his Sefer about when we > say lo plug by gezeros and when not. It has been a while but I believe he > says that gezeros are all lo plug except if the reason was written into the > nusach of the gezera. The problem is, that determination is often non-trivial to make. Where is the end-quote -- is the explanation part of the quote of the wording of the gezeira, or the gemara's explanation of its purpose stated and stated after the quote? We discussed this idea many years ago, when I proposed this was the root of the machloqes about basar kafui. Very related is that it is also sometimes unclear when something is a pesaq in existing law, and when a gezeira. If it's a pesaq, then applicability is built in whether or not it's stated. Pesaqim only hold if the situation is materially the same. What the gemara says about putting out a burning house on Shabbos wouldn't apply to a wood-frame house in an urban or most suburban settings because the risk to life is simply different. Like the Peri Chadash vs the Chasam Sofer about chalav yisrael; the PC says CY is a pesaq, so he has little problem saying that CY is moot when there is other disincentive to adulterating the milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness http://www.aishdas.org/asp which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost Author: Widen Your Tent again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Jul 7 14:44:42 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 21:44:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Risk Reward Message-ID: <1594171681704.0f3bd39e3250de82@aishdas.org> A note I wrote To a pulpit rabbi: I strongly support a recent discussion concerning return to synagogue. I do have to say that there's one point that I deeply disagree on. Maybe it's a matter of nuance that cannot be communicated in trying times to the general public. I don't believe that flattening the curve has no halachic import. In fact as a community we are always making this kind of trade off. If not why wouldn't we spend every dollar we have on improving public health. The answer per R' Schachter and R' Weiss is that's the way the world operates. Bottom line risk reward tradeoffs are often very difficult. Personally I'd prefer we be more open and honest about them and have public discussion but realize that may not be practical So what is the halachic philosophy of risk/reward? perhaps a starting point The cohain gadol and the alternates for himself or wife on Yom Kippur? Kt Joel Rich From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 19:15:59 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 22:15:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Francis Collins on Science and Religion Message-ID: <20200708021559.GA27334@aishdas.org> An interview with Dr. Francis Collins (an Obama appointee now most famous for being Dr. Anthony Fauci's boss). https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/anthony-faucis-boss-on-why-things-could-be-much-better-soon.html Three snippets that are on topic for our group, but there is more discussion of G-d there than this: "I was an atheist when I entered medical school. I was a Christian when I left and it was much driven by this experience of trying to integrate the reductionist aspects of science into the much more fundamental issues I saw my patients wrestling with, like is there a God and does God care about me and what happens after I die? "Those are uncomfortable questions for an atheist 23-year-old, but ultimately they became totally compelling and required some investigation and some answers. Ultimately, out of that, it came to me that it makes a lot more sense to believe in God than to deny God's existence. A scientist isn't supposed to make assertions that you would call universal negatives, because you can never have enough evidence to do that, and yet that's what atheism calls you to do. ... "Similarly, the way that some people have caricatured science as a threat to God, that doesn't resemble the science that I'm doing. It's been a terrible, I think, consequence of our last century or so that this polarization has been accepted as inevitable when I see it not at all in that light. There are many interesting scientific questions that tap into the kind of area that you're asking about, like what is the neuroscientific basis of consciousness? What is the neuroscientific basis of a spiritual experience? If there is such a neuroscientific basis, does that make this spiritual experience less meaningful or more so? Those are fun conversations to have." "... What is our future? I don't want to see a future where this science-versus-faith conflict leads to a winner and a loser. If science wins and faith loses, we end up with a purely technological society that has lost its moorings and foundation for morality. I think that could be a very harsh and potentially violent outcome. But I don't want to see a society either where the argument that science is not to be trusted because it doesn't agree with somebody's interpretation of a Bible verse wins out. That forces us back into a circumstance where many of the gifts that God has given us through intellectual curiosity and the tools of science have to be put away. "So I want to see a society that flourishes by bringing these worldviews together by being careful about which worldview is most likely to give you the truth, depending on the question you're asking." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole http://www.aishdas.org/asp heart, your entire soul, and all you own." Author: Widen Your Tent Love is not two who look at each other, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:30:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714183052.GC21268@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:40:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate > dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), > as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will > be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised > (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- > r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? I'm uncomfortable with your formulation, but I think I agree with your point. As microelectronics become more embedded in society, it's harder to consider their use uvda dechol. So pesaqim ought change. In RMF's case.... What changed over time was not whether a given fact was uvda dechol. He assumed that use of a timer would pose mar'is ayin issues, and that metzi'us changed. A close parallel, but not exactly the same. And yes, it could well be the tzibbur who make that point known to the posqim. (Especially today, when the gedolim we look to for pesaq often are men who never left yeshiva life. As opposed to the previous generations when we looked to the town's rav for pesaqim.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward http://www.aishdas.org/asp by patting yourself on the back. Author: Widen Your Tent -Anonymous - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:30:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714183052.GC21268@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:40:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate > dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), > as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will > be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised > (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- > r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? I'm uncomfortable with your formulation, but I think I agree with your point. As microelectronics become more embedded in society, it's harder to consider their use uvda dechol. So pesaqim ought change. In RMF's case.... What changed over time was not whether a given fact was uvda dechol. He assumed that use of a timer would pose mar'is ayin issues, and that metzi'us changed. A close parallel, but not exactly the same. And yes, it could well be the tzibbur who make that point known to the posqim. (Especially today, when the gedolim we look to for pesaq often are men who never left yeshiva life. As opposed to the previous generations when we looked to the town's rav for pesaqim.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward http://www.aishdas.org/asp by patting yourself on the back. Author: Widen Your Tent -Anonymous - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:21:12 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Yehareig velo ya'avor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I posted on this issue here and on another list: >> If a Ben Noach [Noahide, i.e. non-Jew] is being forced to abrogate >> one of his 7 mitzvot... > I received this [from Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter]: >> If you accept the authority of Rambam, this is black-letter law. See Sefer >> Shoftim, Hilkhoth Mlakhim UMilxmotheyhem, Chapter 10, Paragraph 2: "A Ben-Noax >> who is compelled to violate one of his commandments is allowed to do so > Thanks for the cite! If you check out the mishneh lmelech there For those who didn't look, it's at: https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rtype=%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98&mfid=104611&rid=15005 > he refers > to the parshat drachim derech atarim (drasha #2) who makes exactly the > argument I proposed as why a ben noach would be required to give up his > life rather than kill someone. But also says "debishfichus damim mitzvah haben-noach sheyeihareig ve'al ya'avor". By making it about "mai chazis" it isn't about the 7 mitzvos in general, or even the other two mitzvos that for Jews are yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Rather, because the only question is who dies, not the comparative values are life vs obedience. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation http://www.aishdas.org/asp -- just think of an incurable disease such as Author: Widen Your Tent inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:25:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:25:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:38:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger wrote: >> But in general, there is an increasing reluctance to pasqen in >> some circles. Whether Brisker chumeros or the MB's advice to >> either play safe in some places or avoid the question in another. >> So, we're seeing more and more of it. > I spent a couple of minutes trying to think of examples of this phenomenon, > and I ended up agreeing that this *seems* to be more common in hilchos > brachos... > However, in most other areas of halacha, it's not a choice of this or that. > It's a question of issur and heter. (Or of chiyuv and not.) In such cases, > "avoiding the situation" tends to be synonymous with "being machmir".... I would agree for the "defy the question" pesaqim being more common in hilkhos berakhos. But I don't see Brisker chumeros or baal nefesh yachmir being more of a berakhah thing. Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of safeiq would be lehaqeil. My largely implied question was how to save this reluctance to pasqen from accusations of lack of faith in the entire concept of pesaq and deciding halakhah. Nu, so for the Briskers, I takeh think they don't believe that a pesaq settles the din anymore. As the Rambam put it, Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah. But for the CC and the rest of us? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; http://www.aishdas.org/asp Experience comes from bad decisions. Author: Widen Your Tent - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From zev at sero.name Tue Jul 14 12:29:37 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Yehareig velo ya'avor In-Reply-To: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> References: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <27345b4a-f329-cfd4-8b0f-8b8be1147f72@sero.name> >> Thanks for the cite! If you check out the mishneh lmelech there > > For those who didn't look, it's at: > https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rtype=%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98&mfid=104611&rid=15005 > >> he refers >> to the parshat drachim derech atarim (drasha #2) who makes exactly the >> argument I proposed as why a ben noach would be required to give up his >> life rather than kill someone. > > But also says "debishfichus damim mitzvah haben-noach sheyeihareig ve'al > ya'avor". By making it about "mai chazis" it isn't about the 7 mitzvos > in general, or even the other two mitzvos that for Jews are yeihareig > ve'al ya'avor. Rather, because the only question is who dies, not the > comparative values are life vs obedience. Thank you. However if the Rambam agreed with this it's odd that he didn't say so. And the svara against it seems fairly simple: Yisrael are commanded in kiddush haShem; we're expected to sometimes put obedience ahead of our lives. Therefore when considering for which mitzvos we must do so, the svara of "mai chazis" compels us to include this. It wouldn't make sense to say that for AZ we must be moser nefesh, but for shfichas damim we needn't. But for Bnei Noach the whole concept of mesirus nefesh doesn't exist. They are never expected to do that; we have an explicit pasuk that they're even allowed to serve AZ rather than die. So how can we tell them to sacrifice themselves for mai chazis? On the contrary, they will tell you exactly mai chazina -- this is my life and that is his. To *me* my life is more important than his, just as I expect that to *him* his life is more important than mine. Just as I would give my life to save my children, because theirs are more important to me than mine, so I will give your life to save mine, because mine is more important to me than yours. It's only once the principle that there is something higher than survival is established that we can extend it with mai chazis. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Tue Jul 14 12:55:07 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:55:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <722273ba-58af-d192-57ea-032a8f9cd3e5@sero.name> On 14/7/20 2:25 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Nu, so for the Briskers, I takeh think they don't believe that a pesaq > settles the din anymore. As the Rambam put it, Rav Ashi veRavina sof > hora'ah. Or, they believe in psak in principle, but not in their own ability to pasken, and they're not too sure about your ability either, or his or his or his. But I think there's also a good helping of the gemara's statement that a baal nefesh doesn't eat meat on which a psak was required; as the proverb goes, "a shayla macht treif". Only if the heter is found explicitly in the sources, so that no reasoning was needed can one eat the meat without any qualms. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 03:25:38 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 06:25:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue Message-ID: . R" Micha Berger wrote: > Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't > which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because > there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of > safeiq would be lehaqeil. Safeiq "rather than" pesaq?? Can the two be differentiated? Isn't psak *based* on safek, trying to figure out where Truth resides? > My largely implied question was how to save this reluctance to > pasqen from accusations of lack of faith in the entire concept > of pesaq and deciding halakhah. As I see it, it's not that we have a lack of *faith* in psak, but that we're so confused about how it works. And especially, how it works nowadays when there's no Sanhedrin. To me, the classic case in bitul is bitul b'rov. Does the minority really lose its identity to the point that all pieces can be eaten by a single person at one time? Or is it only a procedural psak, such that we are fearful for each item, and they must be shared among several people, or eaten by one person at different times, etc etc. And it carries through to psak too. Can I really ignore the minority opinion? Without a Sanhedrin to actually discuss and vote, how can I be sure that the other camp is wrong? And so, just as we "avoided the issue" by having several people share the probably-kosher items, we also "avoid the issue" in psak by finding a situation where we don't choose between the several opinions. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 15 02:48:25 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:48:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] action or results? Message-ID: There are four identical quadruplets brothers, Robert, Simon, Larry and Judah. Robert , Larry and Simon are all asymptomatic carriers of the corona virus but Judah is not. The local law and rabbinic authorities require wearing a mask when going out in public but none of them do. The four brothers are not clearly identifiable, when seen, as orthodox Jews but are so known by the public. They all go outside to identical public events where their identities are not known. Robert infects a number of people but he's never identified as the source of the infection. Larry infects a number of people and is identified as a source of infection in the media. Judah never infects anybody and neither does Simon. What shows up on each brothers' permanent record card in shamayim? Is it multidimensional? 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 JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 15 02:50:41 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? 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 zev at sero.name Wed Jul 15 07:03:18 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5622a8f8-7434-2f3e-086c-d0052a01ff28@sero.name> On 15/7/20 5:50 am, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required to > give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol > worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching > theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and > not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? I don't believe there is. These three are not worse than other sins. E.g. murder is only an issur hereg, and is therefore *less* severe than any issur skila and sreifa. So the term "Big 3" is a misnomer; they're in the category for being big. And they didn't all get in to the category in the same way. Avoda Zara comes from the pasuk "venikdashti". Murder comes in from the svara of "mai chazis". And all the arayos come in because of the pasuk that compares eshes ish to murder, so they are included in the "mai chazis" even though that svara doesn't apply to them! Which is very strange. Then there are other mitzvos that also *obviously* override pikuach nefesh, so obviously that they don't need to be listed, such as milchemes mitzvah. (For that matter, since one is required to go even to a milchemes hareshus if the king conscripts one, that too must override pikuach nefesh. And obviously war overrides venishmartem.) Bris also involves a certain level of risk, and historically it was just accepted that a certain number of babies will die from it, and that we have to accept this. So to that extent it also overrides pikuach nefesh, until the risk rises high enough to change that. Losing one child obviously increases the probability of there being a genetic defect in the family, and yet it is not enough to cancel future brissen in that family. Only a second loss does that. Then we have a pasuk that earning a living justifies taking certain risks with ones life; while I wouldn't call this overriding pikuach nefesh or venishmartem, it obviously puts a limit on those principles that many people don't consciously acknowledge. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 15:13:54 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200715221354.GF8072@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:50:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required > to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol > worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching > theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and > not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? One is the greatest violation of Torah, one of Avodah, and one of Gemilus Chassadim. AZ as the inverse of Avodah and Murder as the inverse of Gema"ch shouldn't need elaboration. As for arayos... In the Maharal's commentary on that mishnah, he describes the three amudei olam as a relationship with one's soul, with G-d and with other people. Torah perfects the relatiosionship with oneself. Whereas someone who pursues arayos turns that self into a menuval. Torah is about perfection of the mind, middos and the rest of the soul. Arayos is about giving up on all that and just answering to the body. Living cannot be at the expense of an axe to a pillar one's life stands on. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of http://www.aishdas.org/asp greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, Author: Widen Your Tent in fact, of our modesty. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 05:42:49 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 08:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required > to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of > idol worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one > overarching theme that links these three transgressions that explains > why these and not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? If there's an overarching theme, I haven't found it yet. I have tried to find the reason for each of these three, what makes them different than the other 610, and I've come up with very different answers for each of them. If I'm not mistaken, murder is the only one for which the Gemara gives an explicit reason. If my life is at stake, and the only solution is at the cost of someone else's life, who's to say that my blood is redder? Simple math. Or simple logic, your choice. Next is avodah zara. I came up with this answer myself, so I eagerly welcome any comments about it. My logic is like this: An inventive mind can come up with all sorts of justifications for violating mitzvos in extreme circumstances. "Violate this Shabbos so he will keep many other Shabbosos," for example. Eliyahu built a bamah on Har Carmel, because he knew it would lead to Kiddush Hashem. But Avoda Zara is the sort of thing where - by definition - the means NEVER justify the ends. There is NO situation in which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be Kiddush Hashem. It's a contradiction in terms. Even the opportunity to do mitzvos for the rest of my life can't justify an actual Avodah Zara today. (I'm not talking about where someone merely pretends to do Avodah Zara; that's a more complicated topic and might be justified by some poskim in some cases.) But to actually do real Avodah Zara is treason against Hashem and never allowed. That leaves Arayos. This is a very strange halacha, especially to the general culture arounds us, which accepts these acts (when done by consenting adults) as victimless pleasures, not capital crimes. Non-logical chukim. So why is it that we must avoid these acts, even at the cost of our lives? Doesn't make sense. The tentative answer I've come up with is that this halacha is meant to help insure solid family life. Society around us is falling apart, and many people think that one of the causes is that too many children grow up without strong family values. It is merely my guess, but I can't help but suspect that this is why Hashem made Arayos so very very assur, to impress this value upon us. Even if (lo aleinu) a situation actually arises, and a person is tempted to rationalize that he can do this aveirah today and live to do mitzvos tomorrow, it is still not worth it. That's the message of the severity of this halacha. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hanktopas at gmail.com Sun Jul 19 06:59:31 2020 From: hanktopas at gmail.com (Henry Topas) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 09:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: Recently, I have heard of some shuls beginning Shabbat morning davening at Nishmat or even at Shochayn Ad. This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the same Sha'tz conclude what he started? Kol tuv, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 00:59:57 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:59:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan Message-ID: Just catching up and the message from R' Joel Rich on Sun, 24 May 2020 caught my eye. RJJ wrote: > In the case of the woman putting on a tallis without tzitzis- there > was no real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis > - ie fulfil the mitzvah (except her rabbi told her not to), so why > would you be satisfied with second best. I'm not so sure about the "no real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis" part. In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar could cause carrying in a public domain. Along those lines one could argue that a tallis may also cause one to carry in the public domain if not tied properly, or strings break off, etc. Just a thought, - Danny From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Jul 20 07:02:26 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:02:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when > we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed > by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as > the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the > same Sha'tz conclude what he started? See S"A O"C 53:3 (Shatz vs. tzibbur) https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Orach_Chayim.53.3 She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, Joel Rich From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 11:26:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:59:57AM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: > In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. > > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. ... In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! So, I'm not sure why the HM needs to invoke the risk of an aveirah. Lo zakhisi lehavin. And more to our point, the lack of berakhah doesn't seem to me to prove the mitzvah itself should be avoided because it means some risk exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but the lighting of a fire. Author: Widen Your Tent - W.B. Yeats - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From cbkaufman at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 13:58:38 2020 From: cbkaufman at gmail.com (Brent Kaufman) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:58:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 (4) Message-ID: There are actually 4 big ones that one must voluntarily give one's life rather than transgress. A person is obligated to die rather than transgress any mitzvah in the Torah if one is being forced to do so publicly during a time of shmad. The Rambam lists this, but I didn't check before writing this, for its exact reference. chaimbaruch kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 19:12:11 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 22:12:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: . I wrote: > But Avoda Zara is the sort of thing where - by definition - > the means NEVER justify the ends. There is NO situation in > which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be Kiddush > Hashem. It's a contradiction in terms. I made a typing error there. What I had intended to write was: "There is NO situation in which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be *L'Shem Shamayim*. It's a contradiction in terms." It's not difficult to imagine situations (or cite historical incidents) where someone might do an aveirah L'Shem Shamayim. But that's for the other 612. It seems to me categorically impossible for someone to do actual Avoda Zara (as opposed to merely going through the motions, which is also assur, but *possibly* not yehareg v'al yaavor) for L'Shem Shamayim reasons. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 05:41:45 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:41:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: > This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when > we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed > by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as > the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the > same Sha'tz conclude what he started? I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. E.g.: We learned in a Mishna in Brachos that if the Shat"z cannot continue, a substitute continues where he left off. More common: Aveilim often switch Shat"z at Ashrei - the 2nd one saying Kadish Tiskabal (may our prayers be accepted) even though the first one said the actual Amida that this is going on. In your case, both congregants will be saying both opening and closing Brachot - so I'm not even sure what you're asking. Kol Tuv - Danny From doniels at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 05:34:42 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:34:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> References: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB commented on my thought: > In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos > that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To > the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem > in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! That's THIS VERY Rambam. > So, I'm not sure why the HM needs to invoke the risk of an aveirah. Lo > zakhisi lehavin. > > And more to our point, the lack of berakhah doesn't seem to me to prove > the mitzvah itself should be avoided because it means some risk exists. My mistake for getting you mixed up. The HM isn't commenting on Tzitzis - that part is my "chiddush"... that there's a "good reason" why women didn't wear Tzitzis over the generations. The HM was commenting IIUC why the Rambam talks about women wearing Tzitzis but not Tefillin. I can't find the HM on Sefria, or I'd link to it. Kol Tuv - Danny From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Tue Jul 21 12:08:22 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:08:22 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan Message-ID: <000001d65f92$4e243cf0$ea6cb6d0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:59:57AM +0300 RDS wrote: > In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. > > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. And then RMB responded: <> We need to back up here. There is a fundamental machlokus in the gemora between Rabbi Yehuda (supported by Rabbi Meir), and Rabbi Yossi (supported by Rabbi Shimon) as to whether women are permitted to perform mitzvos aseh she hzman grama - from which they are exempt. Rabbi Yossi says "reshus" - ie they are allowed. Rabbi Yehuda says no, it is assur for women to perform mitzvos asseh shehazman grama. And there are two explanations given for Rabbi Yehuda forbidding women performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. The first (eg by Rashi) is of Bal Tosif. That is, if the Torah says women are exempt from performing certain mitzvos, then for them to go ahead and perform them would violate the principle of bal tosif. However, most rishonim argue that bal tosif does not make sense here, and therefore most rishonim, including those who posken like Rabbi Yehuda, do so not under the principle of bal tosif, but under a principle that can be called "halachic counter-pressure". That is, even Rabbi Yehuda did not forbid all women from doing acts that constitute mitzvos (such as sitting in a sukkah on Sukkos, which, if you follow the bal tosif principle would be ossur for a women to do), but only where there are halachic counter-pressures, and the Haagahos Maimoniyos is quoting some of the halachic counter-pressures that the rishonim discuss. As we all know, we posken (both Sephardim (via the Shulchan Aruch) and Ashkenazim (via the Rema)), like Rabbi Yossi, that women *may* perform mitzvos aseh shehazman grama, and this Rambam is one of the bases for the way the Shulchan Aruch poskens. However: a) there are a significant number of rishonim who posken like Rabbi Yehuda; and b)even within Rabbi Yossi, there are those who say that Rabbi Yossi only permits where the halachic counter-pressure is something less than a Torah prohibition. If, like the Rambam, you holds that saying a bracha sheino tzricha is a Torah violation, and you hold according to this view in Rabbi Yossi, you end up with the Rambam's position. If you follow Tosfos (Ri and Rabbanu Tam), who holds that saying a bracha sheino tzricha is merely a rabbinic prohibition, then following Rabbi Yossi t would be pushed aside in the circumstance of a woman performing a mitzvah that is a reshus. So holds the Rema. For various talks I have given on this, I have drawn up the following diagrams - I don't know if they will come out in the digest form, but I think people find them useful to understand some of the complexity. [RMB, is there some way of embedding these in the digest?] If you don't get them, I am happy to email them separately. Bottom line there are a lot of rishonim who did not hold like Rabbi Yossi, and this is reflected in, inter alia, the discussion regarding tzitzis. Because while the Tur, following his father the Rosh and the Rabbanu Tam/Ran happily permit women to make blessings over shofar and lulav, he says in Tur Orech Chaim Hilchot Tzitzit siman 17 ".And the Rambam writes that they may wrap without a blessing, and he is going in his position that explains that women are not able to bless on something from which they are exempt but Rabbanu Tam writes that they are able to bless even though they are exempt and it is better that they do not bless ..". And the Bach, picking up on this seeming contradiction says (Bach Orech Chaim Siman 17) On "And it is better that they do not bless"; There is to ask from that which he writes in siman 589 in connection with shofar that even though women are exempt they are able to blow and to bless and one should not protest. And it seems to me that it seems from here that in connection with tzitzis that it is not the custom for women to wear, and to bless, if so if a woman comes to ask ab initio if it is permitted to dress in tzitzis and to bless he should say to her that she should not bless because it is better that they should not bless given the disagreement of our rabbis but with shofar where they are already accustomed to blow and to bless they do not protest since they have on whom to rely but if they come to ask ab initio also with shofar you should say to them that they should not bless and we should rely on what was written here regarding tzitzis and this is the law [also] regarding shofar." But, it seems to me, to understand this portion, it is necessary to fully understand the depth of rishonic opposition to women performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. The Hagahios Maymoniyos was one of a number of Ashkenazi rishonim who disagreed with Rabbanu Tam/Ri/Ran and held one should posken like Rabbi Yehuda. Regards Chana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 19942 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.png Type: image/png Size: 21255 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.png Type: image/png Size: 20358 bytes Desc: not available URL: From simon.montagu at mail.gmail.com Tue Jul 21 03:40:33 2020 From: simon.montagu at mail.gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:40:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:59 PM Danny Schoemann wrote: > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. What mitzva couldn't potentially cause an aveira, including ones which women do aliba dekhulei alma? Bad timing in candle-lighting could cause hillul shabbat. On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 9:34 PM Micha Berger wrote: > In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos > that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To > the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem > in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! As I may have noted before, the general trend among Sepharadi aharonim is to follow RT against the SA and Rambam, and say that women at least can, and IIIRC davka _should_ make berachot on these mitzvot. ROY, kedarko bakodesh, insists on following Maran. From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 22 02:56:47 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:56:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?God=92s_existence?= Message-ID: Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all. I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience. It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place I?m not sure that came out as clearly as I might?ve liked but I hope you get the general idea. Thoughts? She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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 bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 22 12:57:46 2020 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:57:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A couple of points relevant to the 'big 3'. Firstly, as has been noted, they are not the only situations of yeihareig v'al yaavor. In addition to the situation of sha'as ha'shmad, the yerushalmi notes that mitzvos bein adam l'chaveiro are also YVAY. Like theft. And I believe we pasken that way. BUT that's not to diminish their uniqueness as YVAY mitzvos. They are mentioned in targum yonasan as a discrete set of YVAY mitzvos, I noticed in the last couple of weeks while doing chad targum. Although I couldn't find it again when I looked. That does mean the derivation in the Bavli is way after the din was already known, by a few hundred years at the least. And points to a much more them being a much more fundamental set of 3 with an early origin in halacha. In response to RZS's point about there being no obvious connection between them, that may well be exactly because they represent the extremes of three different branches of avoda, per the Maharal, and their only connection being that they are all archetypes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 23 08:21:33 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:21:33 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: <002001d66104$f2fb7ea0$d8f27be0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RAM wrote: In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this is the one I want to ask about.) > The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation of > Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana (danger). > Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the Mishnah, shuls > were located outside of the cities where it was not safe to be alone > at night. The Rabbis were concerned that people who came late to shul > might be left alone while finishing to daven. To give latecomers a > chance to catch up and finish davening with everyone else, Chazal > extended the davening by adding Mei'ein Sheva. <> And RAF suggested: <> However it seems to me that this does not answer RAM's question, as the point RAM makes is that Me'en Sheva is a very short additional prayer, and doesn't seem to make much difference one way or the other. Can I make a different suggestion (but again only a suggestion). I have been looking at something called Teshuvat HaGeonim HaChadashot, which, according to Bar Ilan (which is where I sourced it) was published by Simcha Emanuel in Jerusalem, 1995, from a manuscript in the Baron Gunzberg library includes previously unpublished geonic responsa, as well as the writings of early proven?al scholars. In it, in a discussion on the nature of kaddish found at siman 35, the presumably Gaonic author explains the locations of all the kaddishim and after explaining where they are in relation to Shachrit and Mincha (and why) he says ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? +?' ????? ??, ?+ ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? [???] ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??[?]? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????. " And after the blessings of reciting the shema of arvit because the prayer of arvit is reshut [Brachot 27b] and perhaps a person will go out from the synagogue after they finish the blessings of emet v?emunah and will not pray there with ten, and it will be that he will go out without kaddish." That is, there was a genuine concern that because arvit was reshut, people might come to say shema together, and then leave, hence the kaddish after shema and before shmonei esrei of arvit. Now, if that was a genuine concern, then maybe that also explains me'in sheva (especially if you understand me'in sheva as requiring, or at least being ideally, said with the community as a whole). Maybe the point is that a latecomer, given that arvit is reshut, was likely simply to say shema and its blessings and not bother to say shmone esrei at all but simply walk out. However with the incentive of saying me'in sheva together with the rest of the congregation, and with other people prepared to wait for him so that the me'en sheva would be communal, he would actually daven shmonei esrei in the presence of the minyan, so that he could then say me'en sheva with it. >Akiva Miller Kind regards Chana From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 23 09:34:09 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:34:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: <003001d6610f$17ad5ed0$47081c70$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: <> I should have pointed out that this particular teshuva was signed by Rav Avraham ben Rav Yitzchak - and given that he references "a few Geonim" and "other Geonim", later in the piece, it is more likely to be someone like Abraham ben Isaac de Narbonne (1110-1179), so more of a Rishon than a Gaon, despite the name of the compilation. Kind regards Chana From wolberg at yebo.co.za Sun Jul 26 09:36:50 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 18:36:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan 32:76 Message-ID: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> [AhS Yomi for yesterday covered OC 32:73-79. https://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi -mi] Loved the line: ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? -- ??? ??? ????? ???? ???. [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." -mi] Any comment on it? From zev at sero.name Sun Jul 26 16:10:19 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:10:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan 32:76 In-Reply-To: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> References: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> Message-ID: <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> On 26/7/20 12:36 pm, wolberg--- via Avodah wrote: > [AhS Yomi for yesterday covered OC 32:73-79. https://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi > -mi] > > Loved the line: ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? -- ??? ??? ????? ???? ???. > [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- > ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. > > [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts > about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." > -mi] > > Any comment on it? I think "yeseros" here means "superfluous", rather than merely "additional". Of course that begs the question, but I think that in general it's a statement of principle, not a rule for practice, though in this instance the AhS gives his opinion on what is superfluous. (I'd also translate "ein daas chachomim nocha meihem" less literally, as "Torah authorities do not approve of them", or even, riskily, "Daas Torah does not approve of them".) -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:50:00 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daas Chachamim Noachah Heimenu In-Reply-To: <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> References: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200727105000.GA9656@aishdas.org> In translating a Hebrew quote posted to the list, I wrote: >> [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- >> ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. >> >> [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts >> about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." >> -mi] On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 07:10:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > (I'd also translate "ein daas chachomim nocha meihem" less literally, as > "Torah authorities do not approve of them", or even, riskily, "Daas Torah > does not approve of them".) I was always taught something along the lines of your first version. I think it was R Yaakov Haber that I heard this from, but the idiom could equally have been intended to me something more like (loosely) "... isn't thinking with daas Torah". I found the argument compelling enough to try to offer both translations. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From driceman at optimum.net Mon Jul 27 07:36:27 2020 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?God=E2=80=99s_existence?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> RJR: > > Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all. > I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah > We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience. > > It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al > > In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place I haven?t read RAL?s essay (link?), but doesn?t RYhL use this idea at the beginning of the Kuzari, a generation before the Rambam? David Riceman From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Jul 27 09:04:15 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:04:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?God=E2=80=99s_existence?= In-Reply-To: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> References: , <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> Message-ID: <1E4BB098-3996-4C02-9BE1-6CA8B3672151@Segalco.com> I haven?t read RAL?s essay (link?), https://www.etzion.org.il/en/source-faith-faith-itself 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:14:27 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:14:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727201427.GC12492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 06:25:38AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R" Micha Berger wrote: >> Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't >> which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because >> there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of >> safeiq would be lehaqeil. > Safeiq "rather than" pesaq?? Can the two be differentiated? Isn't psak > *based* on safek, trying to figure out where Truth resides? Not safeiq rather than pesaq, "rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq". More reliance on safeiq deOraisa lehachmir, safeiq derabbanan lequlah -- unless efshar levareir / it's easy enough to be machmir. Of course, a baal nefesh may have a different definition of "easy enough". As opposed to looking to which shitah is stated by the gadol bekhochmah uveminyan (minyan rabbanim, rav with bigger following [looking at the Rambam or the Rosh...]), the logic of the sevara behind each possible pesaq, looking to see which pesaq was apparently accepted for how long and how broadly, hefsed meruba, kavod haberios... You know, the rules of pesaq. These latter kind of rules tend to be invoked less often than in the past. I think it comes from the Gra's position on the comparative unreality of pesaq after Rav Ashi and Ravina, taking the Rambam's "sof hora'ah" quite literally. Picked up by the Soloveitchiks, and with the popularity of Brisk among those who pasqen today... Add to that the whole concept of lomdus. Whether Brisker or other derakhim. When you value sevara much more than the other factors posqim have to balance, and you learn how to explain the sevara of all sides of a machloqes... There are fewer times the remaining rules of pesaq rise to the level of giving a clear answer. My latter two paragraphs feed into: > As I see it, it's not that we have a lack of *faith* in psak, but that > we're so confused about how it works. And especially, how it works nowadays > when there's no Sanhedrin. But we seem to disagree mostly on description rather than content: > And it carries through to psak too. Can I really ignore the minority > opinion? Without a Sanhedrin to actually discuss and vote, how can I be > sure that the other camp is wrong? ... "How can I be sure" IS a lack of faith in our ability to pasqen, as I would use the terms. Maybe the insecurity comes from a lack of surity we know how to do it right. I would still call it a lack of faith. If you don't think pesaq can be done the way the Rif, the Rambam, the Tur, the SA, the Levush, etc... did, that their precedent doesn't tell you how to decide which of the eilu va'eilu should become halakhah lemaaseh, that lack of faith in how to do pesaq has scary implications. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:19:21 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:19:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] action or results? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727201921.GD12492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:48:25AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > There are four identical quadruplets brothers, Robert, Simon, Larry and > Judah. Robert , Larry and Simon are all asymptomatic carriers of the > corona virus but Judah is not... > They all go outside to identical public events where their identities are > not known. Robert infects... > What shows up on each brothers' permanent record card in shamayim? Is > it multidimensional? Rachmana liba ba'i. Their records show each one's lack of concern for other's safety. Consequences, if they are correlated at all and some other aspect of hashgachah doesn't overwhelm this rule, megalgelim chov al yedei chayav. Which implies that who gets whom sick would at most be *indicative* of guilt for this or other deeds, not the actual thing he is guilty of. A person isn't judged for the results of their actions, or even for their actions themselves. (So, I'm denying both sides of the question in the subject line.) A person is judged "ba'asher hu sham" -- what kind of changes those decisions and actions made in themselves. I would take it for granted it's multidimensional. The person's "permanent record card" is their own soul. And the effects of their actions can improve one thing about the soul while damaging something else about it. A comparatively easy example is tact. a person can make a person that makes them more truthful, but gains that Emes at the expense of their drive for Shalom. And even without the previous paragraphs, Hashem isn't a Vatra -- the person will get the Tov that a more Emesdik soul has a beis qibbul for, and get less of the Tov that comes with losing some passion for Shalom. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:00:57 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727210057.GF12492@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: >> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when >> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed >> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as >> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the >> same Sha'tz conclude what he started? > I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. I called it an office, not the occupent. But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same idea. I have a theory why: I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a *shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:54:22 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:54:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] God's existence In-Reply-To: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> References: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20200727205422.GE12492@aishdas.org> RDR mentioned the Kuzari before I found the time to reply. I think what changed was in the discipline of philosophy. In the days of the rishonim, Philosophy was itself a kind of religion. Look at the opening paragraphs of ch. 1 of the Kuzari -- the king's survey includes a Philosopher (1:1), a Muslim, a Christian, and then the chaver. A Jewish Philosopher was a Scholasticist. Such that Rihal, even though the Kuzari is a book of philosophy as we now use the term, saw himself as anti-Philosophy. Then came the scientific method and people realizing the power and limitations of testing things empirically. The tensions between the Empiricists, who trusted these methods, and the Idealists, who wanted all knowledge to be as sound as Math, coming from self-evident postulates. And then the Kantian Revolution through to Existentialism and now Post-Modernism, etc... Philosophy less based on a confidence of being able to prove what's out there and more focused on describing the world as experienced. I argued here a few years back that this is what drove the popularity of universal hashgachah peratis. It's less a break from how rishonim understood HP than looking at a different topic. To the rishonim, a discussion of HP is all about its contrast to nature, randomness, bechirah chofshi, etc... Nowadays, the discussion of HP is about what it is we have bitachon in, how much hishatadlus do we need to invest given that what happens is decided by hashgachah... R Yehudah haLevi had a lack of faith in the idea that we can decisively prove that's really out there. That's for Greeks, who lack the more sure source of data -- mesorah. (1:13, 1:63) That mesorah part isn't very Modern in terms of the discipline of philosophy, but not believing we can ever really prove anything... Well, take this quote from 1:13: "Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved." Sounds downright Post-Modern! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Jul 28 19:19:28 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 22:19:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why did Chazal cancel shiva bc of Yom tov Message-ID: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> Many have recently written how they have missed the full traditional comforting process of shiva due to corona restrictions. That has reawakened in me the question of why did Chazal cancel shiva because of Yom tov? If the catharsis and process of shiva is so comforting and desirable for mourners, why did they take that away because of YT and not simply postpone till after YT. It's hard to say that after YT the shiva experience w be no longer necessary or needed. I saw someone suggest that "The souls of those who passed away now with abbreviated burials and shivas were so pure they ascended directly to heaven and did not require traditional mourning rituals." That is hard to hear because shiva (and YT cancelling shiva) is a rabbinic creation. Suggestions? Mordechai Cohen macohen613 at gmail.com From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 29 03:10:38 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:10:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why did Chazal cancel shiva bc of Yom tov In-Reply-To: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> References: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: That has reawakened in me the question of why did Chazal cancel shiva because of Yom tov? ====================================== As one who sat shiva at the cemetery on erev Pesach, I tried to keep in mind R'YBS's insight into true simcha as being lfnai hashem (which is what we're supposed to be on shalosh regalim). Seeing it through HKB"H's eyes it's all good (we are human and so don't experience it as such). So: She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, which will allow us all to see more clearly 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 micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:37 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 11:02:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Crazy Snakes and Dogs Message-ID: <20200730150237.GA14405@aishdas.org> We repeatedly discussed RYBS's statement that toothpaste is not ra'ui la'akhilas kelev and therefore doesn't need a hekhsher to be KLP. Not where I intended to go, but I should note that we never discussed the actual core issue -- the limits of the principle of achshevei. Since toothpaste is flavored, one could argue it does apply. RMF (IG OC 2:92), ROY (YD 2:60), the Tzitz Eliezer (10:25), says it does not apply when the flavored item isn't being eaten for the sake of the flavor. Excluding medicine -- and the same argument applies to toothpaste. The CI (OC 116:8) limits achshevei to spoiled chameitz, and not to mixtures containing chameitz. The "only" machmir about applying achshevei to medicines that I know of is the She'agas Aryeh (75). Now, back to the topic I did intent to post about.... So, the story goes (version taken from R Chaim Jachter at https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/cosmetics-and-toiletries-for-pesach-part-three-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter ): A charming anecdote that occurred in Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's Shiur at Yeshiva University in the 1970's (reported by Rav Yosef Adler and many others) is often cited in support of the common practice to be lenient. The Rav stated in Shiur that toothpaste is not Ra'ui Liachilat Kelev (unfit for canine consumption) and thus one is permitted to consume it on Pesach even if it contains Chametz. The next day in Shiur a student raised his hand and explained that he conducted an "experiment" the night before. He related that he placed toothpaste in his dog's feeding bowl to see if his dog would eat it -- and indeed, the dog ate the toothpaste!! Rav Soloveitchik simply responded, "Your dog is crazy." This story illustrates the ruling that we cited last week from Rav Soloveitchik that the standards of edibility are not determined by aberrant behavior. R Pesach Sommer recently found Tosefta Terumos 7:13, which is more famously available on Chullin 49b. It /has/ to be what RYBS was thinking of. The gemara says: Detanya: 5 [liquids] do not have [the prohibition] of gilui: brine, vinegar, oil, honey and fish gravy. Rabbi Shimon says: I saw a snake drink fish brine in Tzidon! They said to him: That [snake] was a shetaya, and one doesn't bring a proof from shotim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From hanktopas at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 20:29:43 2020 From: hanktopas at gmail.com (Henry Topas) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 23:29:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: >> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when >> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed >> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as >> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the >> same Sha'tz conclude what he started? > I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. I called it an office, not the occupent. But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same idea. I have a theory why: I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a *shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post! -Micha Shavua Tov, Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue for Kaddish Shalem? Thank you and Kol Tuv, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 02:36:36 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 12:36:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Henry Topas wrote: > > Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach > of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for > Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or > officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that > reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue > for Kaddish Shalem? What you describe is nothing I've found in the written Poskim. Where I grew up (various Yekkishe Kehiloth) the Ovel was "off the hook" when Hallel was recited. I see this being done in Yeshivishe minyonim, seemingly to "prevent" the Ovel from being Shatz for Hallel. (Also not recorded, AFAIK, except during Shiva.) So, my guess is, that since the Ovel wants to say as many Kadieshim as possible he "gets back the Omud" after Hallel - giving him one more Kaddish. This has no bearing on our discussion, it's a question (and answer) on a recent "Minhag/Hanhogo". Kol Tuv - Danny From emteitz at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 14:06:35 2020 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 17:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: Henry Topas wrote: However one looks at the office of shat"z, there is a difference between chazaras hashat"z and the rest of davening. For everything else, he is essentially a pacer, keeping everyone at the same point in davening, and the leader, in terms of kaddish and borchu. For the amidah, he is definitely a shaliach, whose role it is to be motzi those who cannot themselves daven. It would be possible theoretically not to have a shat"z, having all daven together, and then having one person who, at the appropriate times, would say kaddish and borchu. Chazaras hashat"z, however, must obviously have a shat"z. On days when Hallel is said, it is not a part of chazaras hashat"z; it is, in essence said *during *the chazara, after which the chazara is completed by saying kaddish shalem, which *is* a part of the chazara. (Hallel is in the same category as slichos on fast days, which was originally said during the shat"z's saying the bracha of Slach lanu. Then, too, I believe that someone other than the shat'"z could have led the slichos while the shat"z remained at the amud.) That the aveil should not lead Hallel, but should return for the kaddish because it is a part of the Amidah, is spelled out in the Mishna Brura (581:7). This leads to questioning the practice, when there is more than one aveil, of switching ba'alei tfila at Ashrei-Uva l'Tzion. There are some who object to the practice for that very reason, but apparently it is in the same category as allowing kaddish to be said by more than one person at a time: a concession to darkei shalom in a highly emotional setting. That the aveil not lead Hallel is the opinion of the overwhelming majority. The Mishna Brura loc.cit. brings the apparent opinion of the GR"A who goes even further, that the aveil not lead the entire Shacharis. The MB also cites, in the Biur Halacha in Siman 132, that there are those who bar the aveil from the amud on any day, other than erev Yom Kippur, that Lamnatzeiach is not said -- and does not limit it just to Shacharis on those days. (This is the minhag in my community.) Incidentally, in parts of Europe and in some shuls in EY, there is no shat"z for psukei d'zimra. The amud is unmanned until Yishtabach. If no one need be there, then certainly where there is one, there is no problem in replacing him for Yishtabach. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolberg at yebo.co.za Wed Aug 5 08:00:26 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 17:00:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Censorship in Aruch HaShulchan Message-ID: <014701d66b39$296ebf40$7c4c3dc0$@yebo.co.za> In 39:3, the AH writes: ger (beyamim kadmonim). This was obviously added for the gov censor, similar to Aruch HaShulchan ChM 388:7. Why do we not find the same in MB? Actually, AH OC was written after the same section in MB. Was the political climate in Novardok and Radin so different? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 10 00:52:25 2020 From: eliturkel at mail.gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:52:25 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potato chips and french fries Message-ID: A nice article on the various opinions of bishul akum for french fries and potato chips https://vosizneias.com/2020/08/10/chareidi-potato-chips-versus-regular-chips/ -- Eli Turkel From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 13:42:35 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:42:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Chaim Brisker on his 102nd Yahrzeit Message-ID: <20200811204234.GA9159@aishdas.org> R Elinatan Kupferburg posted this today on Facebook, lekhavod RCB's 102nd yahrzeit (21 Av). Translitarations mine, "q"s and all. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Today is the yahrzeit of [Maran shel kol Benei Yisrael, Rabbeinu Chaim haLevi,] R. Chaim Soloveitchik. It is far beyond this post, or this site, to capture any of the towering significance of Rabbeinu. For that, there's only one thing to do. You have to learn R. Chaim. You sit for hours poring over a sugya without R. Chaim, only to open the sefer and have R. Chaim, with his penetrating, elegant brilliance guide you through the depths of the sea of Talmud. It's as if you were overhearing snippets of a conversation without knowing the topic and then someone revealed it to you and now everything you heard suddenly falls into place. But I do want to make a couple of points about R. Chaim's legacy. Perhaps the most common metonym used to describe or exemplify what is referred to as "the Brisker method," is the cheftza/gavra distinction, often compared to the in rem/in personam legal distinction, though the two are not entirely analogous. It's part of a broader tendency to describe or teach "the Brisker method" by means of a few templatic distinctions: internal/external, intrinsic/accidental, action/result and so on, and has recently been reinforced by books or pamphlets which attempt to do the same. Unfortunately, not only are these gross simplifications and reductions, they entirely obscure what R. Chaim was actually doing, replace it with a different method of study (albeit one that is more prominent in some of his students, notably R. Elchonon Wasserman) and thereby miss his genius. The halakhic discourse, the lomdus, that pervades the Brisk Yeshiva that grew out of the study group around his son R. Velvel (the Brisker Rav) or the other yeshivas it birthed (including BMG), is dissimilar to this perception. 1. The words [cheftza] and [gavra] do not ever appear anywhere in the same piece in [Chiddushei Rabbeinu Chaim haLevi]!! Yes, really. (Except once in [Mekhilah 22:17,] when [gavra] is a quote from the Gemara, i.e. [hahu gavra]). There's a very good reason for that. Because making templatic distinctions is entirely different than what R. Chaim was doing. R. Chaim was elucidating the concepts that underlie and inform halakhic discourse. What is nature of a legal document? What type of obligation is the command is rid chametz? How does a blemish render an animal unfit for sacrifice? Under which mitzva is this prohibition included? R. Chaim's success is defined by precision of conceptual description, which is opposed to templatic rigidity. The only time that [gavra / cheftza] is actually widely used is in Nedarim 2b, in the distinction between vows and oaths, since there the distinction literally is the locus of the prohibition (vows designate an object as forbidden, oaths compel a person to act in a certain way). Often his discussion is not remotely similar to any of the popular "chakiras." For example, the section of the MT that gets the most attention in R. Chaim is the recondite [Hilkhos Tum'as Meis,] in which the pedestrian templates fail. Distinction is a helpful tool in the art of clarity and the halakhic world is composed of human agents and non-human objects, so parts of his discourse may approximate the infamous [gavra / cheftza] but it is by no means central or representative. To be fair, the templatic perception captures certain aspects of some of his chiddushim, and it does communicate the notion of underlying dyadic conceptual distinctions, but I wonder about its ultimate efficacy. 2. The distinctions that approximate [gavra / cheftza] are much older than R. Chaim. Just to give a few examples: - Rivash (Shut 98) extends the gemara's analysis in Nedarim to all prohibitions. - Rid (Eiruvin 48a) uses it describe the prohibition of transporting an object 4 amos in the public domain on Shabbos. - Chasam Sofer (Chullin 115b) uses it to distinguish different types of prohibitions. - Beis Halevi (Shut 3:51 - R. Chaim's father) uses it to explain the nature of the mitzva to eat korbanos. In a broader sense, this type of analysis can be found most acutely in (to give a few examples, moving backwords) Minchas Chinuch, R. Akiva Eiger, the works of R. Aryeh Leib Heller and R. Yaakov Lorberbaum, Peri Megadim, and, most strikingly, by R. Judah Rosanes, whose [Mishneh laMelekh] and [Parashas Derakhim,] two centuries ahead of their time, prefigured much of the Brisker Torah. Of course, the Gemara and Rishonim (Rashi and Meiri come to mind) are not absent of this lomdus either. A recent terminological case from Daf Yomi: take the discussion about perforating an old hole in a wine barrel on Shabbos 146b, where Rashi describes the halakhic crux as whether or not [paqa sheim 'pesach' mineih.] 3. R. Chaim did a lot of things. - He tightened a terminology. - He sharpened the analysis of halakhic concepts. - He displayed a new way of visualizing a sugya and working through it. - He identified the conceptual systematization that forms the substructure of the Mishneh Torah. - He developed a proto-philosophy of halakhic hermeneutics. - He opened the door for gaonim like R. Shimon Shkop to take analysis in a different direction. - By shifting the backdrop from practical halakha to halakha itself, he enabled us to see halakhic concepts not only as useful for determining practice, but as a way through which to view and interact with the world. Each of these deserves a sustained, independent analysis to identify the existing terminologies and approaches that R. Chaim drew on, and the extent of his own innovative prowess. Most powerfully though, he forever changed the halakhic consciousness. Conceptual analysis is now an inexorable part of the talmudic arsenal. Any advanced student of traditional Gemara who sits down to learn has been sensitized to the possibility of a conceptual distinction at play, even if they have no intention of using what they consider "the Brisker method." For some, R. Chaim's thought is so overwhelming that one can never look at Gemara differently again. But I might venture to say that its power lies in the recognition that even if someone does not walk down the path R. Chaim cleared, then that is precisely what they are doing: not learning like R. Chaim. R. Chaim fundamentally defined the contours of halakhic thought, and we are all in his debt. [Ki gadol sheim avinu beYisrael, ve'or Toraso male'ah teiveil -- misof ha'olam ad sofo mamash, umi zeh milomedei Sorah bedoreinu asher lo zarach alav or shimsho venogah Soraso.] From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Aug 11 14:37:14 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:37:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin Message-ID: If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? 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 zev at sero.name Wed Aug 12 08:07:36 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:07:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/8/20 5:37 pm, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another?s birchat hanehenin > and then did not eat, is it a bracha l?vatala for him? I don't see how it can be. The bracha had effect for the person who said it, so it was not wasted. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:23:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:23:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200812202354.GA10738@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 09:37:14PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin > and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? Berakhah levatalah sounds like a description of the "cheftza" of the berakhah. Not gavra-specific. And what would be levatalah, the mevoreikh's kavvanah to be motzi him? Safeiq berakhos lehaqeil is sometimes explained as safeiq deOraisa lechumerah where the deOraisa is sheim Hashem lashav. Along those lines, one could theorize that as long as the sheim wasn't said lashav, it's not a berakhah levatalah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals http://www.aishdas.org/asp is not as important as Author: Widen Your Tent what you become by achieving your goals. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Henry David Thoreau From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Sun Aug 16 08:51:59 2020 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 11:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Business with an Akum Message-ID: One is not permitted to do any kind of business with an Akum (idol-worshipper) on the day of their festival (nor 3 days prior in the Land of Israel) - Rambam Hil. Avodah Zara Ch. 9, Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 148.1. Question - Today, if I know a shop owner is a religious Xian, am I allowed to shop there on Sunday? Or if I know he is a religious Hindu, do I need to mark my calendar with all of the Hindu festivals and avoid his shop on those days? What about a traditional Chinese person on Chinese New Year? Or a Catholic on All Souls Day? If so, is there any halachic literature that lists all of the dates currently forbidden? (I?m also not allowed to sell to him on his holidays, and if I do (in error), I?m not allowed to enjoy the profits of that sale.) Alexander Seinfeld From joelirarich at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 03:47:26 2020 From: joelirarich at gmail.com (Joel Rich) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 06:47:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat hamazon Message-ID: <8FD081BF-3F42-460C-BE16-588F69071B09@gmail.com> A group of people are having Shabbos meal together in the dining room. They all get up to clear the main course dishes and bring them into the kitchen. The dessert flatware and glasses remain on the table Must they say birchat hamazon immediately upon return to the table? Kt Joel rich From micha at aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 09:00:38 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 12:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re'eih vs Shema Message-ID: <20200816160038.GA25978@aishdas.org> Because we say the words from Va'eschanan multiple times a day, I have heard (pun intended, sadly) a lot about shema when it means something more than the stimulation of neurons in my inner ear. Like the English word "listen", "shema" connotes paying attention, obeying ("eiqev asher shamata beQoli"), etc... So, what do we get from the use of "re'eih", as in the title of this week's parashah? In the past couple of days, I cam up with a theory about the difference between shemi'ah and re'iyah, but want to vet it with the chevrah. Shema introduces a theological fact we can only accept in the abstract. We don't even fully understand how One, Indivisible and Unique Hashem is. We are told to accept ol malkhus Shamayim on this basis, but the fact itself is one we can apprehend, not experience. Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite different than an abstract truth. (This seems to be consistent with "ein domeh shemi'ah lere'iyah". "Re'iyah" is something I can know first-hand.) Ta chazi in the bavli seems to also fit this pattern: Berakhos 58a: Rav Sheishes says to a min, "ta chazi" that I am brighter than you, proceding to show he figured out when the king would come. But then, the point was made at the beginning ot the story that R Sheishes was blind, so ht emay have been using the phrase pointed. Eiruvin 6b: ta chazi that the gates of Neharda'ah couldn't be locked. (And thus Shemu'el doesn't require they be locked in order to permit carrying.) Etc... All cases of "go and check for yourself". Nothing at all like "ta shema", which introduces learning a teaching. And of course "puq chazi". But in the Yerushalmi and the Zohar, "ta chazi" is used the way "ta shema" is in Bavel. So, maybe I am just reading too much into Bavli idiom. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a http://www.aishdas.org/asp person is to remain asleep and untamed." Author: Widen Your Tent - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From kbloom at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 14:30:40 2020 From: kbloom at gmail.com (Ken Bloom) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:30:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? Message-ID: Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Aug 17 15:37:49 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 22:37:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Dialectics? Message-ID: An important caveat (IMHO) from R' A Lebowitz to a number of shiurim from diverse speakers: Me-....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y, and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y? R' AL-I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just a helpful way to contextualize the issues I'm still thinking there's another paradigm shift coming, interested in hearing from others. 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 doniels at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 04:55:45 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:55:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > From: "Rich, Joel" > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3 (excuse the Hebrew for the ????? crowd) - translation from Sefaria (after removing a Chumra not in the original): ????? ????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ?????????, ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ?????????????, ???? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???????. "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi shebeirach [a blessing for those who fast on these days] and you intended to fast, this is sufficient, and no other form of acceptance is needed. " ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query. Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of getting the best of both worlds. Kol Tuv - Danny From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Aug 18 05:43:47 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:43:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query. Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of getting the best of both worlds. ============================================== When I learned this with my chavruta a few months back my comment was - I'd love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - machshava balma (random thought?) which has no halachic significance, amira (specific oral articulation) which is completely binding and amen/specific machshava(really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat indeterminate (not welcome in a brisker world?) 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 doniels at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 05:03:54 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:03:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Re'eih vs Shema In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMB reminded me of a vort I heard and said over at this week's Shabbos table. The opening word of the Sedra - Re'eih - is seemingly superfluous. "I present you today with [the ability to choose between] blessing or curse". What does "Look! I present you...." add? The answer was exactly as RMB proposed: > Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the > world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite > different than an abstract truth. We need to look around and see how choice and its consequences are built into the creation. Kol Tuv - Danny From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Aug 18 05:54:11 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 08:54:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. looking for sources and current custom Message-ID: <015401d6755e$aba2ff10$02e8fd30$@touchlogic.com> #! ... May a women uncover her hair in private? Halachah addresses public, semipublic, and private settings: Public: The Torah states that a woman must completely cover her hair in a public place. Some opinions state that under a tefach (a handbreadth, about three inches total) of hair may show. Semipublic: In a semipublic place, one opinion states that even if men are not usually found there, a married woman must cover her hair. When a woman covers her hair, this brings much blessing into the home Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory...." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required." Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? #2 https://www.yoatzot.org/questions-and-answers/1910/ Question: Does a woman have to cover her hair in front of her brothers? Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the presence of your father, husband and son. Where it is customary and not considered offensive, a woman may uncover her hair in front of her brother in the privacy of her own home. Is this leniency known/relied upon? Is this what people are doing out there today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 17:51:37 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:51:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200819005137.GB6547@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 02:55:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote: > I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3... > "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday > following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi > shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient... > "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you > may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." > This last line is -- in my mind -- parallel to your query. > Seems that answering Amen -- even with intention -- is one way of > getting the best of both worlds. I think the best of both worlds may only because you said amein to blessing the fasters, and not "me too" to someone's pledge to fast. There is mental acceptance during a related verbal act. Not a verbal acceptance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but the lighting of a fire. Author: Widen Your Tent - W.B. Yeats - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 17:48:02 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:48:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Dialectics? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200819004802.GA6547@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:37:49PM +0000, Joel Rich wrote: > Me- >> ....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I >> just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y, >> and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean >> choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y? > R' AL[ebowitz]- >> I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just >> a helpful way to contextualize the issues When discussing Brisker vs Telzher derakhim, everyone focuses on "Vus?" vs "Fahr vus?" (What? vs Why?) But another major different is R' Shimon's heavy use of the concept of hitztarfus -- the idea that a halakhah can be caused by the convergence of multiple factors. >From Widen Your Tent (by me), sec. 6.3: But there is a second distinction: Rav Chaim would explain an apparent contradiction by finding "the chiluk," the distinction between two cases that we initially thought ought to be the same, or the distinction between the viewpoints in two sides of a dispute. Rav Chaim's is a reductionist approach to analyzing a topic; it teaches how to understand something by identifying and understanding each of its parts. This methodology is suited for identifying "the cause" of a law. Rav Shimon also invokes hitztarfus, fusion or connectedness. It allows us to better ask, once we know the parts, how do they combine and interact to produce the given result? From this vantage point, rather than looking for a single cause, we can see that a given ruling can come from the way in which many halachic causes combine. Suppose we were tasked to do analysis to find out why some accident happened. For example: Why did David hurt his foot? Because a paint can fell on it. Why did the can fall? Because someone else accidentally knocked it off its shelf. Why did he knock it off the shelf? Because his nose itched, and he lifted his hand to scratch it, and also because the shelf wasn't on its brackets correctly and wobbled a bit. However, it's equally true that he hurt his foot because even though he usually wears iron-toed hiking boots, he chose not to wear them that that day. And why did he not wear his boots? Because when he was looking for something to put on his feet, someone else had turned on the light in another room, which changed his train of thought. And so on. Every event has many causes, each of which in turn has its own many causes. Rarely does an event only have one cause. We get used to identifying "the cause" of something. I would instead suggest that every event is like "the perfect storm"; each one has combinations of factors that come to a head at the same point. Similarly, Rav Shimon saw no reason to assume that it takes one cause to create an obligation or prohibition, rather than a combination of them. Which I then relate to R Shimon's approach to chessed as a widening of one's "ani" to include others. (The way we naturally have little problem giving to our children, because in a sense, they're "us".) I also use the difference between the focus on reductionism vs interconnectedness to explain a structural difference between Aristo's books and the Mishnah. WHich may be more relevant to the point: This difference between Semitic and Yefetic perspectives can be seen by contrasting the style of Aristotle with that of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Aristotle catalogues. He divides a subject into subtopics, and those subtopics even further, until one is down to the individual fact. Greek thought was focused on reductionism. To understand a phenomenon, break it down into smaller pieces and try to understand each piece. This is typical of the Yefetic perspective. That reductionism stands in contrast to the way Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi redacted the first Mishnah. The beginning of all of Mishnah could have said outright that Rabbi Eliezer ruled that the time for saying the evening Shema is from sunset and for the first third of the night. This is the way United States legal codes are arranged divided and subdivided into law, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, clauses, and items, with an effort to minimize cross-references. Instead the first Mishnah makes its point by invoking the priesthood, purity, and the night shifts in the Temple, "from the time Kohanim [who went to the mikvah to be purified during the prior day] may enter to eat their terumah until the end of the first shift." It describes the start and end times for the mitzvah using referents that one wouldn't normally assume when starting study. This is not to confuse the issue or needlessly close study from non-initiates, but because the key to understanding one mitzvah necessarily includes its connections to everything else. The proper time to say Shema cannot be understood without that context. The task Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi set out to accomplish with the Mishnah was not to explain the rationales of the halachah, and therefore the Mishnah spells out this holistic understanding. We are left not knowing why the rules of when Kohanim who needed the mikvah may eat terumah or the time the first shift in the Beis Hamikdash ended add meaning to the time span in which the nighttime Shema may be said. But the Mishnah does record the law in memorizable form, and apparently that includes helping us remember the halachah by association to the other halachos it relates to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur http://www.aishdas.org/asp with the proper intent than to fast on Yom Author: Widen Your Tent Kippur with that intent. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 12:42:04 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Limits of Parshanut Message-ID: <20200820194204.GA9194@aishdas.org> Parshanut doesn't have rules of pesaq. Nothing ever ends an opinion (lifsoq) once it is derived. So, those 98 ways become 9,604 ways, and then 941,192 ways as each interpretation gets its 98 interpretations. And then we have cases where those who pursue peshat -- Rashbam, IE, most famously -- give a peshat in the pasuq which they acknowledge runs against Chazal. But they feel Chazal weren't working bederekh peshat. (And the Rashbam is clear that he doesn't believe Chazal were wrong, or that anything he says about the pasuq has halachic signicance. E.g. see his comments on "vayhi erev, vayhi boqer".) But, procedurally, there still has to be rules for what kind of interpretation is valid and what aren't. I cannot believe that people can just make stuff up, and if fits a linguistic oddity of the text or a wording in some source of Chazal it's necessarily Torah. I don't know what the limits are. All I know is the limits of my own comfort zone. *To me*, "toras Hashem temimah" means that if I have a theory of how to understand something aggadic -- theology, mussar or parshanut -- it must be driven by material internal to the existing body Torah. If I am forced to an an entirely new understanding that no one proposed before to answer a scientific question, I would prefer leaving the question tabled, teiqu, than to run with this kind of innovation. To me, following a tendency I heard around YU from R YB Soloveitchik's students (my own rebbe, R Dovid, was yet more conservative), this is related to the difference between chiddush and shinui. "There is no beis medrash without chiddush" because learning Torah means extrapolating new points from the existing data. Extrapolation from and interpolation between existing Torah "data points" is chiddush. Shinui is innovation driven by something other than Torah. I am not sure if RYBS would say that in the context of parshanut in particular or not. As I said, as this point we're only discussing the not-that-relevant topic of "Micha's comfort zone". Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... http://www.aishdas.org/asp ... but you're the pilot. Author: Widen Your Tent - R' Zelig Pliskin - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 13:27:15 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:27:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vaccine Trials in Halakhah Message-ID: <20200820202715.GA32236@aishdas.org> Given the need for CoVID-19 vaccine challenge trials, I heard a number of podcasts on the topics of testing or volunteering to be a test subject for an experimental cure. But, it's hard to get people who are reading an email digest to take time for an audio. So, here's a link to something in text. https://thelehrhaus.com/timely-thoughts/signing-up-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-trial Here's the halachic section of the paper, minus all set-up and general ethics discussion. Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; http://www.aishdas.org/asp Experience comes from bad decisions. Author: Widen Your Tent - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF The Lehrhaus Signing Up for a COVID-19 Vaccine Trial By Sharon Galper Grossman and Shamai Grossman August 18, 2020 ... Undergoing Dangerous Medical Procedures in Halakhah Halakhah's approach to dangerous medical procedures begins with Avodah Zara 27b, which permits a hayei sha'ah - a sick individual with a limited time to live - to seek the care of a pagan doctor, because while we worry that a Jew-hating doctor might kill the Jewish patient, he might also effect a long-term cure. However, if the sick individual is unlikely to die, he may not turn to the pagan. The Gemara's explanation as to why we permit the hayei sha'ah to risk his brief remaining time alive is, "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" - we are not concerned about a risk to a short life because the pagan doctor might cure him. The Gemara derives this principle from the dilemma of the four lepers in II Kings 7:3-8. Banished from their city, which was struck by famine, they faced starvation. They saw a camp of Arameans possessing food, and were confronted by the following dilemma. If they were to enter the camp, the Arameans might kill them, yet they might feed them. Preferring possible immediate death from capture to certain subsequent death from starvation, the lepers entered the camp. There they discovered an abundance of food and survived. Tosafot (s.v. le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan) questions the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan." Doesn't Yoma 65a's permission to move stones on Shabbat to search for a hayei sha'ah buried underneath the rubble imply that we value even the briefest survival? Tosafot answers that in both cases we act in the best interest of the patient, rejecting certain death for an uncertainty that might prolong life. Thus, in Avodah Zarah, we disregard hayei sha'ah because otherwise the patient will surely die. In Yoma, we desecrate Shabbat for the hayei sha'ah because if we do not remove the stones, he will also certainly die. Based on Avodah Zara 27b and the story of the lepers, Shulhan Arukh Yoreh De'ah 155:1 codifies the principal "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan," permitting a hayei sha'ah to incur the risk of death at the hands of a pagan doctor in the hope of a long-term cure. Numerous modern poskim[7] rule that a hayei sha'ah may undergo a risky medical procedure if it offers the chance of a long-term cure. Shevut Ya'akov 3:75 explains, "Since the patient will certainly die, we push off the certainty of death and opt for the possibility of cure." One source, however, seems to prohibit the hayei sha'ah from undergoing dangerous medical treatment. Sefer Hasidim 467 describes a special herb remedy with the potential to kill or cure within days of use, accusing the women who prepared it of shortening the lives of their patients. One might interpret his denunciation as a rejection of the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan." Orhot Hayyim, Orah Hayyim 328:10 dismisses this interpretation, explaining that Sefer Hasidim only prohibits the risky remedy because there is an alternative safe treatment. He argues that in the absence of an effective alternative even Sefer Hasidim would accept the risk. Applied to our case ,the absence of an effective cure for COVID-19 might justify engaging in a risky process to find a cure. Does the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" permit healthy volunteers like Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial that injects half of the participants with a vaccine of uncertain benefit, exposing them to a lethal virus? To answer this question, we must determine if hayei sha'ah applies to healthy volunteers who do not face the risk of immediate death, the level of medical risk one may incur to achieve hayei olam (long-term cure), and the level of benefit required to justify the assumption of such risk. In addition, we must establish whether the volunteers may endanger themselves, in the absence of any personal gain, purely for the benefit of others, and whether this principle applies to experimental therapies where the benefit of treatment is unclear. Finally, if Halakhah permits participation, is one obligated to volunteer? Defining Hayei Sha'ah The discussion permitting dangerous medical treatment assumed that the individual had the status of hayei sha'ah - a terminal illness with a limited time to live. Can we interpret hayei sha'ah more broadly, and can we apply this understanding to human vaccine challenge trials involving healthy volunteers? Rishonim and early Aharonim do not define hayei sha'ah precisely. Their interpretation of the term ranges from a life expectancy as short as one to two days to longer than a year (see Table 1). Though these poskim debate the exact duration of life required to satisfy the halakhic definition of hayei sha'ah, they view a hayei sha'ah as an individual with an illness that compromises his life expectancy. At first glance, these poskim would not classify Sam, a healthy young volunteer, as a hayei sha'ah. However, Tiferet Yisrael Yoma, Yakhin 8:3, expands the definition, permitting a healthy individual to undergo smallpox vaccination, which causes death in one in 1,000 individuals, to attain long-term immunity. He dismisses the small risk of immediate death from vaccination so as to prevent future lethal infections and broadens the definition of hayei sha'ah to include situations where the cause of death is not present, but is only a statistical possibility. He bases this ruling on Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which, citing the Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, obligates a person to place himself in a possible danger to save his friend from a certain danger. So for example, if someone sees his friend drowning in the sea, he must jump in to save him though he risks drowning during his attempted rescue. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if a bystander is obligated to incur possible risk to rescue his drowning friend from a possible danger, a healthy individual may accept possible immediate peril to save himself from a possible future danger. Rabbi J.D. Bleich applies Tiferet Yisrael's definition of hayei sha'ah to healthy carriers of the BRCA mutation who act to reduce their high risk of cancer by opting for prophylactic surgery.[8] Though the cancer has not yet developed, they may incur the immediate risk of surgery to increase their life expectancy.[9] Even if we consider a genetic predisposition or a statistical probability a present danger, it is unlikely that unafflicted carriers of such a mutation will die within twelve months. By permitting a healthy individual to assume a one in 1,000 risk of immediate death to prevent a future lethal smallpox infection, Tiferet Yisrael suggests that Halakhah recognizes the importance of disease prevention, equating it with treatments for active life-threatening disease. His halakhic analysis and assessment might permit a healthy volunteer such as Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial to achieve immunity from COVID-19. However, such a trial involves substantial risk without proven benefits. In addition, because Tiferet Yisrael bases his position on the Yerushalmi which obligates an individual to endanger himself to save someone who faces certain danger, Tiferet Yisrael might even allow Sam to participate in the absence of any personal benefit, for pure altruism to save humanity. Defining a Permissible Level of Risk Aharonim debate the exact level of risk the hayei sha'ah may incur. Ahiezer 2:16:6 cites Mishnat Hakhamim to permit a dangerous treatment for a safek shakul - a risk of death less than or equal to 50%. If the risk of death exceeds 50%, the hayei sha'ah may not receive the treatment. This is also the opinion of Tzitz Elieze r 10:25:5:5. If the majority of physicians endorse treatment, Ahiezer permits a risk greater than 50% and does not define the upper limit of permitted risk. Because any COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial would receive the prior approval of an overseeing body of physicians, Ahiezer might permit participation for a risk higher than 50%. Beit David Yoreh De'ah II:340 permits a hayei sha'ah to receive a treatment that causes death in 999 out of 1,000 patients. In 1961, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58, permitted a treatment in which the odds were more than 50% that it would cause death. However, in 1972 (Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 3:36), he modified his position, permitting only a safek shakul. He concludes that a hayei sha'ah who seeks medical treatment with a greater than 50% risk of death may rely on the more lenient position of Ahiezer and receive the dangerous therapy. How does Sam's participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial compare to the risks that these poskim cite? They address situations where the person is terminally ill and faces imminent death, but do not define the level of risk a healthy individual may incur. However, Tiferet Yisrael permits a healthy individual to undergo vaccination against smallpox with a risk of death of one in 1,000. For all adults age 20-29 infected with COVID-19, including those with comorbidities, virologists estimate a 1.1% risk of complications requiring hospitalization and 0.03% risk of death,[10] an approximation that might either overestimate or underestimate Sam's true risk. Sam, who suffers no comorbidities, might be at the low end of the participation risk. Furthermore, because Sam lives in an area with a large number of COVID-19 cases, he is already at high risk of infection; participation only minimally increases this. Should he become infected, he will receive state-of-the-art care, which might reduce his complications. In addition, if researchers identify an effective treatment, that treatment would further diminish his participation risk. With appropriate risk minimization (e.g., careful titration of viral dose, early diagnosis, and optimal medical care), Sam might face little, if any, additional risk related to experimental infection. Alternatively, Sam's risk of death might be higher than estimated because the vaccine or the strain of virus injected might increase the severity of infection or the incidence of lasting harm. In addition, because the virus is so new and follow-up of those infected limited, the long-term risks of COVID-19 infection are unknown and might be greater than anticipated. Even if Sam's risk from participating is higher than estimated, his danger of death is still well below the 50% threshold that the above poskim use and the 0.1% risk that Tifferet Yisrael permits for healthy individuals undergoing smallpox vaccination. Definition of Hayei Olam - What Benefits Justify Risk? The above discussion, which explored a hayei sha'ah's acceptable level of risk with regard to medical treatments, assumed that the goal of treatment is to achieve hayei olam, a long-term cure. Poskim disagree about whether one may undergo a dangerous therapy for any other purpose, such as prolonging life in the absence of a complete recovery or the relief of pain and symptoms. Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58 and 3:36 prohibits risky treatment that merely prolongs life in the absence of complete recovery. Rav Bleich offers a different perspective.[11] Quoting Ramban's Torat ha-Adam,[12] which derives from the phrase, "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" the principle that "we are not concerned with possible [loss of] hayei sha'ah in the face of more life (hayei tuva)," Rav Bleich interprets "hayei tuva" to mean more life, and concludes that Ramban would permit dangerous medical treatment to achieve a longer period of hayei sha'ah, even in the absence of a cure. Iggerot Moshe Yore De'ah II:36 prohibits dangerous treatment for pain relief alone. Rav Yaakov Emden, Mor u-Kezi'ah 328, writes that surgery for pain relief is not "hutar le-gamrei," categorically permitted, suggesting that under specific circumstances it might be allowed. Tzitz Eliezer 13:87 permits morphine for a dying patient, although morphine might hasten his death, because nothing torments man more than intractable pain. Thus, Tzitz Eliezer would argue, a hayei sha'ah may undergo dangerous treatment not just to achieve hayei olam but also to achieve hayei tuva, longer life or pain relief. What is the benefit to Sam of participating in the human vaccine challenge trial? Will participation give him hayei olam, hayei tuva, or some other non-life prolonging benefit? First, vaccination itself or infection with or without vaccination might yield hayei olam -- a long-term cure and permanent immunity to COVID-19, akin to Tiferet Yisrael's smallpox vaccine. However, it is possible that the vaccine or infection will only provide temporary immunity. Here, participation will not achieve hayei olam, but only hayei tuva, but revaccination to boost his immunity could yield hayei olam. Second, because Sam lives in a high-infection zone, he faces a real risk of becoming infected even if he does not participate. Participation guarantees Sam priority in the allocation of medical resources and the best medical care should he become infected. By participating, Sam decreases his risk of complications and death from infection. Better care could improve his medical outcome and increase his chances of surviving COVID-19, thus facilitating hayei olam. Furthermore, if he develops immunity, he can no longer infect his family. The possibility of achieving long-term or short-term immunity to COVID-19, better treatment if infected, and relieving anxiety over infecting others are direct benefits to Sam for participating in the trial. However, it is possible that participation will provide no benefit, direct or indirect, to Sam. Sam's ultimate motivation for participation, like that of the thousands of volunteers who have come forward to participate in these trials, is altruism, helping to discover an effective vaccine that will save millions of lives. May one undergo a dangerous treatment in order to save others? Incurring Risk to Save Others Citing Talmud Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426 obligates one to place himself in a possible danger to save the life of someone facing certain danger. In Shulhan Arukh, Rav Yosef Karo and Rama omit this requirement. Sema Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 explains that Shulhan Arukh and Rama follow Rambam, Rif, Rosh, and Tur, who also omit this obligation. Pithei Teshuvah Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 suggests that they omitted this obligation because it contradicts Talmud Bavli (Niddah 61a and Sanhedrin 73a) and Jewish law typically follows Talmud Bavli. Radbaz 3:627 (53) was asked if a foreign government demands that a Jew undergo removal of a limb, a procedure presumed not to endanger his life, to save the life of another Jew, may one do so. He answers that one who consents acts with midat hasidut, a degree of piety, but if amputation will endanger his life, he is a hasid shoteh, acting illogically by violating the commandment va-hai bahem (which Sanhedrin 74a understands to mean that mitzvot are to live by and not die by). Similarly, in in Radbaz 5 Lilshonot ha-Rambam 1:582 (218), he addresses whether one is obligated to save the life of a fellow Jew, he explains that if the rescuer faces a safek mukhra - a certain danger - he has no obligation to act. But if the odds are greater that he will save his friend without endangering himself, failure to rescue transgresses lo ta'amod al dam rei'ekha. Tiferet Yisrael bases his teshuvah permitting a healthy volunteer to undergo smallpox vaccination on Talmud Yerushalmi and Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which obligate a person to place himself in danger to save a drowning friend. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if one may endanger himself to rescue his friend from danger, he may certainly assume risk of vaccination to save himself and achieve long-term immunity. In fact, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:174:4 permits one to accept a possible danger if it will save someone else from a definite danger. Tzitz Eliezer 13:101 rules that one may participate in experimental therapy and donate blood to benefit others if physicians determine that participation is risk-free. We consider such participation a mitzvah. In this situation, however, physicians cannot determine the risk of Sam's participating in the human vaccine trial and cannot claim that the trial is without risk. In Yehaveh Da'at 3:84, Rav Ovadia Yosef prohibits treatment with a risk greater than 50% based on Radbaz's classification of a rescuer who endangers himself for a safek shakul as a hasid shoteh. Rav Ovadia Yosef states that the majority of Aharonim, including Eliyah Rabba 328:8, Netziv ha-Emek She'eilah Re'eh 147:4, Aruh Ha-shulkhan 426, Mishpat Kohen 143-2, Heikhal Yitzhak Orah Hayyim 3, and Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 1:145, support this position. However, he permits kidney donation and even considers it a mitzvah, because the risk to the donor is low; according to the physicians with whom he consulted, 99% of donors recover fully from the operation. Interestingly, like Rav Ovadia Yosef, ethicists point to kidney donation as a model for determining the level of risk one may accept to benefit others[13,14] and consider the risk of death from participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial equivalent to the risk of death from kidney donation.[15] Because the risk of death from participating in this trial is significantly less than 50% and is comparable to the risk of kidney donation, Halakhah would seem to permit Sam's altruistic enrollment to save others from certain death from the virus. In fact, Sam's participation, which has the potential to save not just one life, like a kidney donor, but millions, is not only permitted but meritorious. One might even argue that Sam is obligated to participate based on lo ta'amod al dam rei'ekha. Rav Asher Weiss in Minhat Asher 3:122 cites Ta'anit 18b as proof that an individual may endanger himself to save the community, and in doing so performs a great mitzvah. According to Rashi, Turyanus, a Roman official, accused the Jews of murdering the emperor's daughter. He threatened mass execution unless the guilty party confessed. To save the community, Lilianus and Pappus, falsely do so. Turyanos executes them and spares the community. Rav Weiss concludes that an individual who gives his life to save the community has a direct path to the Garden of Eden. He states that when a nation is at war, there are unique rules of pikuah nefesh, the obligation to save a life. To win, the nation requires the self-sacrifice of not only its soldiers, but all those who fill essential, life-saving roles, such as police officers, fire fighters, security guards, and physicians. In the midst of a pandemic that has infected 13,000,000 and led to the death of 500,000 worldwide, one may reasonably conclude that we are at war with COVID-19, and that Sam and the other volunteers for a human vaccine challenge trial are voluntary conscripts. Though Halakhah permits one to undergo risky treatment to achieve a long-term cure, poskim, including Tiferet Yisrael Yoma 8:3, do not obligate participation. If the chance that the treatment will succeed is greater than 50%, Iggerot Moshe in Yore De'ah 3:36 and Choshen Mishpat 2:74:5 Rav Bleich explains that assuming risk for a long-term cure is permitted but not obligatory, because we trust a person to do what is reasonable to safeguard his body from danger. For those who are risk averse, undertaking a dangerous treatment or participating in a human vaccine trial would be unreasonable, while for the less conservative, such as Sam, the risk is acceptable. Experimental Therapy in Halakhah The discussion about dangerous medical treatment applies to therapies with known medical benefits. How does Halakhah approach risks incurred for experimental therapy with no proven benefit? Ttitz Eliezer 13:101 limits participation in experimental treatment to trials that are risk-free. Rav Moshe Dov Welner in ha-Torah ve-haMedinah, VII-VIII (5716-5717), 314, prohibits participation in clinical trials that lack scientific basis. He addresses a situation where the physician has no idea how to treat a disease and decides to experiment on a dying patient because the patient will die anyway. He calls such a physician a terrorist. The scientific reality surrounding human vaccine trials is vastly different than this extreme example. While the exact benefits of participation - such as whether the vaccine confers immunity and whether it will eradicate COVID-19 - are unknown, these trials employ vaccines that have already shown promise in preliminary trials and undergone extensive review by governmental and international agencies that have approved their scientific merit as potential vaccines. Such trials would not qualify as acts of desperation, implemented because the patient is dying anyway. Minhat Shlomo 2:82:12 permits participation in medical research, classifying the battle against disease as a milhemet mitzvah, a necessary war. Today we do not have a king or beit din to declare a milhemet mitzvah against disease and obligate the healthy to take dangerous medicines to help find a cure. He writes that because recognized experts, our contemporary equivalent of a beit din or king, take great care to execute these studies, one may participate. He explains that participation qualifies as holeh lefanenu, the presence of an actual sick person before us, which is considered a fundamental halakhic requirement for defining a situation as pikuah nefesh. In Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De'ah 280, Rav Yehezkel Landau prohibited autopsies because they are for the benefit of future patients, not those who appear before us now, and thus fail to meet a strict definition of holeh lefanenu.[16] Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explains that those autopsies were performed exclusively to increase the physician's knowledge, so are not comparable to experimental therapy. Rav Auerbach believes that contemporary medical research qualifies as holeh lefanenu because those sick with these diseases are before us, and the treatments to be tested are before us. He considers participation in clinical trials safek hatzalat nefashot - possibly life-saving - and not merely an academic exercise to increase scientific knowledge. Human Vaccine Challenge Trials Recently, Rav Asher Weiss[17] directly addressed the permissibility of participating in such trials. Reiterating his position in Minhat Asher 3:101 that one may endanger oneself to perform an essential communal role such as serving as a police officer, rescue worker, or even judge who risks death threats, he permits young, healthy individuals to participate in COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trials in controlled environments because the risk of complications or death is low, especially for those who are young and lack comorbidities, and the trial can potentially save thousands of lives. He notes the concerns of Noda be-Yehuda[18] and Hatam Sofer,[19] who prohibited autopsies because such procedures failed to satisfy their halakhic definition of holeh lefanenu. Rav Weiss explains that even if we do not define participation as pikuah nefesh, overriding biblical and rabbinic prohibitions, it is a mitzvah since it will save millions of lives. This social good permits Sam to assume the small risk of participation. Furthermore, one cannot extrapolate from the autopsies of the Noda be-Yehuda to contemporary scientific reality. It is highly unlikely that autopsies performed two hundred years ago affected medical care. He writes, "verifying the efficacy of a vaccine would not be categorized as a benefit in the distant future, but rather as a great mitzvah that is, in fact, halakhically considered to be possibly life-saving." He rejects Rav Auerbach's classification of medical research as milhemet mitzvah because this designation obligates participation in medical research, and Rav Weiss believes that participation is not obligatory. Only wars fought against enemy armies qualify as milhamot mitzvah, not public dangers such as wild animals and diseases, to which only the laws of pikuach nefesh apply. Conclusion The halakhic decisions cited above, including perhaps even Radbaz, would seem to permit Sam's participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial, because a healthy individual may incur a small risk of death, comparable to the risk permitted for other acts of altruism such as kidney donation to achieve long-term immunity. In addition, the potential benefit to society is immeasurable, preventing the death and suffering of millions by halting the spread of this pandemic and ending the physical, psychological, and economic devastation of prolonged social distancing. Table 1 ... [Okay, I couldn't pass the summary table of who defines chayei sha'ah as how long to the digest. So, go check the URL for yourself! Skipping to the foonotes. -micha] ... [7] Shvut Yaakov 3:75, Pithei Teshuvah Yoreh De'ah 339:1, Gilyon Maharsha Yoreh De'ah 155:1, Binat Adam 73, 93, Binyan Tziyyon 111, Tiferet Yisrael Boaz, Yoma 8:3, Ahiezer 2:16:6, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58 and 3:36, and Tzitz Eliezer 4:13, all permit a hayei sha'ah to undergo risky medical treatment for cure. [8] Bleich, J.D., "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures," Tradition, 37, no.3 (2003): 76-100, [241]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23262430 . [9] Bleich, J.D. "Genetic Screening: Survey of Recent Halachic Periodical Literature," Tradition, 34, no.1 (2000): 63-87, [243]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23261641?seq=1 . [10] Verity, R. et al, "Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis," Lancet Infect. Dis. March 30, 2020, [245]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20 )30243-7/fulltext . [11] Bleich, J.D., "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures," Tradition, 37, no. 3 (2003): 94. [12] Kol Kitvei ha-Ramban, II, 38. [13] Miller, G., Joffe, S., "Limits to Research Risks," J. Med. Ethics 35, 445 (2009). [14] Resnik, D., "Limits on Risks for Healthy Volunteers in Biomedical Research," Theor. Med. Bioeth. 33, no. 2 (April, 2012): 137. [15] Verity, R. et al, "Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis," Lancet Infect. Dis. March 30, 2020, [251]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20 )30243-7/fulltext. [16] For a more detailed discussion of the definition of holeh lefanenu in Covid-19, see our earlier Lehrhaus essay, [253]https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/sharpening-the-definition-of-h oleh-lefanenu-the-diamond-princess-and-the-limits-of-quarantine/. [17] Rav Asher Weiss, "Experimental Treatments for Coronavirus," Mosaica Press (2020): 5-7. [18] Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De'ah, 210. [19] Hatam Sofer Yoreh De'ah, 336. From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Aug 20 14:43:28 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:43:28 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. Message-ID: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> << Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory...." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required." Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? >> See Igeros Moshe Even HaEzer Chelek 1 siman 48 and also (and particularly) Igeros Moshe Orech Chaim chelek 5 siman 37:12: ????? ???? ???? ????, ???? ?????. ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????. ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????. ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? (???? ?"? ?"?), ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????. ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????. The covering of the head before her husband is not necessary. Since the prohibition of uncovering the head is only in the marketplace. And even at the time of her period, there is no prohibition in her house before her husband and children. And there is a hidur to do like Kimchit (Yoma 47a) but we have not heard that there are any modest like this and even in the earlier generations. And in the time of the Tanaim the married women were not accustomed so except for individuals like Kimchit. Note specifically *but we have not heard that there are any modest like this, and even in the earlier generations*. A reasonably translation of this is surely: neither Rav Moshe's wife, nor his mother did this. <> I think it depends on your community. In a modern orthodox community in which most women are not covering their hair when they go out in a public place either, I suspect many if not most of the few women who do cover their hair when they go out absolutely rely on this position, and sometimes more lenient ones inside their homes (ie only cover their hair when they go out, as per the pshat of the mishna & gemora in Ketubos as referred to by Rav Moshe, and not when in their home regardless of who is there). In the Satmar community where they shave their heads, no, I am pretty sure no women are relying on this leniency. Within the communities on the spectrum between these two poles, I suspect it varies, getting more likely as you move towards the more "modern" end and less likely as you move towards the more charedi and certainly Chassidic end. But Rav Moshe never having heard of it in his and in previous generations is a notable data point. Regards Chana From mcohen at touchlogic.com Thu Aug 20 17:04:40 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:04:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. In-Reply-To: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> Thank you for your comments RCL wrote... Note specifically *but we have not heard that there are any modest like this, and even in the earlier generations*. A reasonably translation of this is surely: neither Rav Moshe's wife, nor his mother did this. True; although I would like to hear what the Feinstein children testify about their mothers hanhaga.. RCL wrote... Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the presence of your father, husband and son. R moshe as quoted only mentions husband/children. Where/how do we expand this to her brother? if it was bc of the simple pshat of the Mishna & gemora in Ketubos, then everyone should be ok inside (not just brother/family) and if the heter is based on inside - is uncovered hair allowed when swimming w husband/children alone (but outside)? (it is illogical to suggest that there is a continual obligation to cover her hair outside, even when a permissible situation such as alone or only with other women) Mc From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Aug 20 17:56:42 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 01:56:42 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. In-Reply-To: <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> References: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <000001d67755$efd44600$cf7cd200$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMC writes: <> Actually, this wasn't me, this was the yoetzet website you quoted. <> I assume that the reasoning behind the website's psak is based on with whom she is allowed to have yichud. Rav Moshe also doesn't specifically mention father, and yet the logic of the website including father as automatically on the same page as husband and children would seem to be driven by the unity of halacha regarding yichud. The yichud status of brothers is a bit more complex, as a certain level of yichud is allowed, but not completely, and hence they would seem the logical extension to question, and one could understand a view that, to the extent yichud is allowed, so should this be. >Mc Regards Chana From akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com Fri Aug 21 03:06:29 2020 From: akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 06:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > I'd love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - > machshava balma (random thought?) which has no halachic significance, > amira (specific oral articulation) which is completely binding and > amen/specific machshava (really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat > indeterminate (not welcome in a brisker world?) It seems to me that what you're really asking is: How/why does "Shomea k'oneh" work? Why is it that if I listen to someone say something, and we both have the correct "specific machshava", it is considered "as if" I had said it myself? And, just as importantly, to what *extent* is it considered as if I said it myself? As an illustration of this principle, R' Danny Schoemann cited the Kitzur in 127:3 > Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday > following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi > shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient... > Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, > you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself. I'd like to offer another illustration: If a person is saying Shemoneh Esreh when the shul is at Kaddish or Kedusha, Mechaber 104:7 writes that "He should be quiet and pay attention to the shatz, and it will be like he is answering." And the Mishne Berura 104:28 explains: "It will be like he is answering for the purpose of being thereby yotzay for Kaddish and Kedusha, but nevertheless it is not considered a hefsek." The halacha of Shomea K'oneh seems to allow us to have it both ways: We have *effectively* said something, yet not *actually* said anything. [Email #2. -micha] Addendum to what I wrote a few minutes ago: I know that Shomea K'Oneh is effective even when one does not actually respond "Amen". After all, a precise translation of the phrase would NOT be "listening is like answering Amen", but is rather "mere listening is like repeating it yourself." And yet, I seem to recall that there are some specific cases where the halacha differs depending on whether the person actually said "Amen" aloud, vs where he merely listened with all the correct intentions. Does anyone else know of such cases? Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 21:33:33 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:33:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: To prevent the spread of COVID see https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the shofar? Does it affect the sound? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Fri Aug 21 04:57:08 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:57:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21/8/20 12:33 am, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > To prevent the spread of COVID see > https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ > > What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the > shofar? Does it affect the sound? The OU says it doesn't appear to. https://www.ou.org/covid19/ 9. Shofar: An appropriate precaution during shofar blowing would be to place a surgical mask over the wider end of the shofar, as this does not appear to alter the sound of the shofar blast. Some may point the shofar out an open window or door, or near and towards the front wall or aron kodesh, facing away from the congregation. A single shofar should not be used by multiple people, and no barrier should be placed between the shofar and the mouth of the one blowing the shofar. Poskim have addressed when and how much to sound the shofar where the time in shul is seriously limited -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 12:07:00 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 15:07:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 07:33:33AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ > What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the > shofar? Does it affect the sound? As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does not affect the sound. But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer without specifying which kind(s) of masks they experimented with. The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else with sensitive hearing in the minyan, you need them to say they don't hear a difference if they personally wish to be yotzei.) But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use. Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices. Chodesh Tov! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but add justice, don't complain about heresy, Author: Widen Your Tent but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Sat Aug 22 17:47:42 2020 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 20:47:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:45 PM Micha Berger wrote: >> What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the >> shofar? Does it affect the sound? > As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does > not affect the sound. > But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer ... > The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound > of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else > with sensitive hearing in the minyan... > But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the > resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use. > Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from > the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices. I blow shofar for my shul. I have placed a surgical mask on the shofar and blew the shofar for the Rav both on and off without him looking at the shofar. He did not hear a real difference and I concurred. You can get a different sound from the shofar depending on how you place it on your lips and the amount of air used. Rav Shulman of YU / YI Midwood suggests blowing under your tallit or at a door without a mask on the shofar. From zev at sero.name Sun Aug 23 01:04:56 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 04:04:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does > not affect the sound. No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound, and is therefore permissible. I have no idea whether they're right, but this is what they say, and they know the halacha, so I assume they've done whatever is necessary to determine the metzius. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 06:11:31 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 09:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200823131130.GA6504@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 04:04:56AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does >> not affect the sound. > No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound... As per the rest of the post you're quoting: My comment was that they take it for granted that the mask(s) they tested with are indicative of the mask a member shul may be using. I would not. (Had I been in the OU, I would have been more specific about which brand mask.) But I'm not questioning their pesaq that listening on the other side of the mask is the original qol and not a "qol havarah". ("Hatoqeia lesokh habor, mishnah RH, on top of 27b in Vilna Bavli) I therefore isolated their halachic stance which from their depiction of the mtzi'us. Because I wanted to raise the question whether, even leshitasam, is a piano tuner or other person with sensitive hearing can hear a difference the rest of us can't, would he be yotzei. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect http://www.aishdas.org/asp painting? It's easy. Author: Widen Your Tent Make yourself perfect and then just paint - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 19:45:48 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 22:45:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault Message-ID: . At the Eglah Arufa, the zekeinim declare, "Our hands did not spill this blood! Our eyes did not see!" I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: > The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly > responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any > stranger from our city without food (so that he might have > been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or > without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected > on a dangerous road)." How can the zekeinim have been so sure? Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed? We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident? I considered the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas Orchim organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never will happen. (The three listed there, if I read it correctly, are Ben Sorer Umoreh, Ir Hanidachas, and a house getting tzaraas.) But it's *not* listed there, so I suppose it might have happened, or at least, *could* happen. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Sun Aug 23 06:35:32 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 13:35:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed? > > We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident? > > ??????- I?m not sure these are Mutually exclusive. Perhaps they are saying that the fault is not systemic and of course we have to see where we fell short and try to improve on it Kt Joel RichTHIS 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 zev at sero.name Sun Aug 23 07:39:22 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 10:39:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22/8/20 10:45 pm, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I considered?the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only > done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the > Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas?Orchim > organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever > occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been > listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never > will happen. The answer seems very simple. Not even the most thorough hachnassas orchim will ever prevent all murders, because most crimes are *not* committed out of need. The idea that the victim was actually a robber who was killed in legitimate self-defence, but in a further plot twist he only robbed out of desperate need, and had the city's elders done their job this would never have happened, is very far-fetched. The overwhelming likelihood is that he was an innocent person who was killed by a robber who was acting out of greed or sheer wickedness, as *most* robbers do. The Zekeinim are merely ruling out that far-fetched scenario in which they would bear some responsibility. And if you ask why, in that case, do they have to go through this whole rigmarole to rule it out, I suggest that it's so that this possibility is always on their minds, and they do their utmost to make sure that in the unlikely even that a body is ever found they should be *able* to make this declaration. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Aug 23 06:27:37 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:27:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Going swimming with your sister Message-ID: I always thought that brothers and sisters (even teenagers) could go mixed swimming privately just the immediate family because we assume that there are no hirhurim among immediate family members. However, I listened to the Headlines podcast where he interviewed an Israeli posek from Machon Puah who claimed that it was forbidden. Anyone have any sources? Piskei Halacha from modern poskim? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Aug 23 09:24:06 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:24:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee Message-ID: From https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-will-be-travelling-and-would-like-to-know-if-there-is-a-concern-of-bishul-akum-with-coffee-a-consumers-question I will be travelling and would like to know if there is a concern of bishul akum with coffee? (A consumer's question) OU Kosher Certification Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel. Raw coffee beans are inedible, a... See the above URL for more. From zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 24 09:27:09 2020 From: zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com (Zalman Alpert) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 12:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As > previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh > al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel. > Raw coffee beans are inedible, a... Great example of what DR Hayym Soloveitchik wrote about in his seminal essay Rupture and Reconstruction. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Aug 24 10:49:59 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 13:49:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200824174959.GF11765@aishdas.org> Bishul aku"m only applies to foods that are olim al shulchan melakhim. Qiddush can be made on chamar medinah. Seems to be a lower standard, when it comes to drinks, as the masses are unlikely to be pickier than their kings. The AhS (OC 272:12) ranks yayin and then sheikhar ahead of other drinks, but does include sweetened tea among the things one may make qiddush on. Similarly, IM OC 2:75. (Likely an indication of the price of sugar, RYME names tei matoq in particular as chamar medinah, not just writing "tei". Another measure of their poverty is his discussing their general use of raisin wine, as a reason why they were allowed to choose sheikhar even if wine was available. Meaning, I don't know if the AhS would allow this choice for us today.) But I am wondering benogei'ah to our original topic is whether it's possible to formulate a consistent shitah in which coffee can not be used for Qiddush and also cannot be used if bishul aku"m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message http://www.aishdas.org/asp that God is not yet discouraged with Author: Widen Your Tent humanity. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabindranath Tagore From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Aug 24 11:18:23 2020 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 14:18:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: I have an even better solution. Have the baal tekiah get a Covid test now and then a couple days before R?H and if both tests are negative and he is in good health, the chances of him having the virus is almost zero. From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 24 16:08:22 2020 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 7:02 PM Cantor Wolberg wrote: > Have the baal tekiah get a Covid test now and then a couple days before > R"H and if both tests are negative and he is in good health, the > chances of him having the virus is almost zero. It is possible to catch the virus after getting tested. Most tests take days to come back; by then you are contagious. Only if you test positive for antibodies, do you know that you have had the virus. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Aug 24 18:33:48 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:33:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee Message-ID: . According to the OU at the link posted, > Nonetheless, the Pri Chodosh writes that brewed coffee need > not be bishul Yisroel, since coffee is primarily water, and > water does not require bishul Yisroel. I have difficulty following that logic. Granted that if one looks at the ingredients, coffee is indeed primarily water. But why is that fact more relevant than the importance that society gives to this beverage? R' Micha Berger pointed out that Chamar Medinah "seems to be a lower standard" than Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim, and I'd agree. But I think it's irrelevant, because it is obvious to me that coffee is Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim. The dessert at a state dinner would not be s'mores and Slurpees; it would be elegant cakes and coffee. I suspect that for some reason (possibly the fact that Bishul Akum has little to do with kashrus and much to do with limiting our social contact with non-Jews), the rabbis went out of their way to find leniencies for it, and drinks is an example of such a leniency; I suspect that it never occurred to Chazal to extend the gezera beyond solid foods. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Aug 26 09:49:29 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:49:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Honoring Step Parents & More Message-ID: Please see https://vosizneias.com/2020/08/26/honoring-step-parents-more/ I found this to be a very interesting article YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 23:07:38 2020 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:07:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: It seems more reasonable to blow under the tallis without a mask. After a while, the tokea has to shake water out of the shofar. Slightly challenging with a mask on it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 23:11:27 2020 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:11:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Davening_at_home_on_Yamim_Nora=E2=80=99im?= Message-ID: This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. We will miss out on much of the ?experience? of the piyutim. Does anyone know of guidelines for what to do at home, such as part of chazarat haShatz? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 05:57:18 2020 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:57:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im Message-ID: RChaim Tafel wrote: > This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul > for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. > We will miss out on much of the "experience" of > the piyutim. Does anyone know of guidelines for > what to do at home, such as part of chazarat haShatz? Say them all except for the few you should only ever say when you are shatz, for example the netilot reshut, like all the misod chakhamim unevonim lines and such as the Ochila (which really, in my opinion, despite the popular tunes, the tzibbur should never say, as it is the netilat reshut for the shatz to insert the seder ha'avodah). Also skip obviously hineni he'ani mima'as, as it is for the shatz. Also skip the E-lohein vE-lohei Avoteinu heyei 'im pifiyot (which in my opinion the shatz shouldn't ever say, as it is a prayer for the shatz' success recited by the public). Finally, obviously whenever the cachzor calls for reciting 13 middot, depending on the poskim you follow, either skip or recite with te'amim. Otherwise I see no reason why you couldn'T beautifully sing your way through the entire machzor. But don't use one of these butchered machzorim, go for the real, unabbreviated, full and complete Rdelheim. (I am assuming you're ashkenazi, because Sefardi piyutim are altogether different). [Email #2. -micha] By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata Hu E-loheinu. In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. I am obviously totally tolerant, but it is still poetically wrong, objectively so. ;-) Ketiva vachatima tova, -- Mit freundlichen Gren, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Aug 28 06:14:15 2020 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 07:53 AM 8/28/2020, Chaim Tate wrote: >This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul for Rosh Hashanah and >Yom Kippur. >We will miss out on much of the ?experience? of the piyutim. >Does anyone know of guidelines for what to do at home, such as part of >chazarat haShatz? The YI of Midwood sent out an email saying that no piyyutim will be said during the davening on the Yomim Noraim. After all in many shuls the davening on Shabbos has been curtailed due to concerns about the virus. (no speeches and no singing). In some shuls people have been told to daven up to Baruch She'omer before coming to shul. So you won't be missing anything if other shuls follow the YI of Midwood! Personally I hope they do. Long davening can lead to the spread of the virus even with proper social distancing. Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said the it is better to daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more that 15 minutes , IIRC. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From crclbas at aol.com Fri Aug 28 06:49:54 2020 From: crclbas at aol.com (BenS) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:49:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Yomim Tovim References: <2007338277.6646156.1598622594128.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2007338277.6646156.1598622594128@mail.yahoo.com> The RCA And? ?YU have sent suggestions for shuls who want to skip certain piyutim. ASk your Rov for these guidelines. This can also be used for those who must daven at home. But be sure to arrange for Shofar on the second day. Minimum of 30 Kolos are needed. Shonoh Tovah!! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Aug 30 06:53:54 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 13:53:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos Message-ID: Please see https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-want-to-order-a-new-cell-phone-and-am-not-particular-when-it-will-arrive-am-i-permitted-to-place-an-order-online-if-the-website-indicates-the-package-will-arrive-on-saturday/?category&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shsh%20Ki%20Teitzei%205780%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=32470835&spUserID=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&spJobID=1764350018&spReportId=MTc2NDM1MDAxOAS2 YL I want to order a new cell phone and am not particular when it will arrive. Am I permitted to place an order online if the website indicates the package will arrive on Saturday? | OU Kosher Certification The issue here is whether arranging a delivery for Shabbos constitutes Amirah li?akum (instructing a non-Jew to perform melacha on Shabbos), which is prohibited. One might assume that this is analogous to handing a letter to a non-Jew on Friday and a... oukosher.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Aug 29 19:57:19 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 22:57:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d Message-ID: . In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? This may happen elsewhere too, but this case stands out because the form changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out to Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the contrast? If the third person was reasonable in the first part, why switch to the first person later on? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Aug 31 13:58:44 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-want-to-order-a-new-cell-phone-and-am-not-particular-when-it-will-arrive-am-i-permitted-to-place-an-order-online-if-the-website-indicates-the-package-will-arrive-on-saturday > One may not place an order if the delivery will definitely take place > on Shabbos. For example, one cannot send a package with UPS or FedEx > on Friday and select ?next day delivery?. Similarly, one cannot order > a refrigerator or washing machine from a store and arrange for a > Saturday delivery. I disagree with the author on this. Since they could choose to deliver after Shabbos and still fulfil their obligation, you are not telling them to deliver on Shabbos. In the winter this could actually happen. But even in the summer, when you can be fairly sure they won't do that, that's their choice not yours; if they did arrive after Shabbos you would have no right to complain, so you are not asking them to work on Shabbos. Only if they guarantee that "all deliveries will be made during business hours" or something similar would you not be allowed to order a Saturday delivery. And even then, if there's a space for delivery notes, and you write that late night delivery will be OK, that should be enough to permit it, even if you can be fairly sure it won't change anything. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Sep 1 06:53:18 2020 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:53:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > > From: Akiva Miller > > In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today > to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) > > Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > This may happen elsewhere too, I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the G-d of Avraham, etc. Therefore, the layman refers to the G-d of the Kohane, whose biblical role is to teach of Hashem and His Torah and therefore conceptualized Hashem more accurately. (I would have to concede that at first sight this does not work in cases where the person bringing the Bikkurim is actually greater than the Kohane. One can answer that it's a matter of *lo plug, *using a fixed formula for everyone at all times, following the normal situation. Or I would modify my explanation to say that the Kohane may not necessarily have a higher conceptualization but, through his avodah, a unique one not shared by others, which is relevant to the Bikkurim bringer in his role as such.) but this case stands out because the form > changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out to > Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the contrast?... > I think the above explanation works to explain this. In fact, note that the farmer is referring to the G-d of our "ancestors," meaning G-d as understood by the avos. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 12:29:01 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:29:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901192901.GA18013@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:53:18AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > This may happen elsewhere too, > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > G-d of Avraham, etc... I would have written something very similar, if RAM's email weren't still flagged "to do" in my email box when RZL's came in. However, I wouldn't have used the word "hasagah". I would have talked about the need to list "E-lokei Avraham", "E-lokai Yitzchaq" and "E-lokai Yaaqov" separately. To me, it speaks to the idea that the avos each had distinct relationships with the Borei. The "G-d of Avraham" was a different relationship than the G-d Yitzchaq "had" (kevayakhol). I don't know how RZL meant the word "hasagah", but to me it speaks to knowing *about* something. As in greater people have greater understandings of what G-d is. I would instead has said that "E-lokekha" is about the G-d the kohein has time to relate to more constantly than the farmer does. And it might also make the Vidui a statement about the farmer's relationship with G-d. Rather than who has more relationship, but about kidn of relationship. After all, the kohein may be learning, teaching and doing avodah all day, but the farmer teams up with G-d and relies on G-d to produce his crop. That's the point of the vidui -- that the G-d of Yetzias Mitzrayim gets credit for more day-to-day things my success. Something a kohein may only get more vicariously. So, he's saying to the kohein, "G-d is not only how you relate to Him from your ivory tower -- 'Your G-d', realize He also is intimately involved in my life and everyday life." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Interesting quote my signature generator chose from the perspective of being this close to the end of 5780. (Although we must remember, we are likely the first generation for whom life is normally so wonderful, this year qualified as a notably "bad" one.) -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 15:54:36 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901225436.GC18013@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:30:40PM -0400, Ken Bloom wrote: > Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one > should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in > finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. I'll give you "or elsewhere". Here's what I do. 1- During the year, I try to keep a cheshbon hanefesh. Laziness and momentum being what it is, that means that I usually have a journal of the decisions and reactions of a few 1 to 2 month stretches during the year. So, something I do early in Elul is review those, see patterns, what changed during the gaps... And trying to compensate changes because I was just focused on different things in different parts of the year. I then try to mentally fill in the gaps, as I can. And then I make a list of those issues in my reactions, decisions and actions that seem to have recurred a lot. It's often not the issues I was thinking I was failing at before I looked through notes. For that matter, even if you "just" keep a diary of your responses to the week -- not what happened to you, but how you responded to it -- from now to RH would give more insight to what habits and middos might really need the most attention. And to make that list, I try for a list of 2 to 4 items that both need the most attention and yet balanced with things I can actually tackle. For example, I have a long-running battle with ka'as. But it may not be the chink in the armor most ready to move. I might want to work on my frustration threshold, noting that my temper is very often the sum of frustration plus having someone I can pin blame on. And the plan has to be incremental. Not "starting YK I never will..." or "will always", but "starting YK I will take the first step to... which is..." For exmple, not expressing frustration in a given set of situations. Or maybe right after work for the first hour I'm home. Or whatever. 2- So much for correcting past mistakes. My other step is something Bank of America mislabeled Hoshin Planning that I adapted for life. https://www.aishdas.org/asp/hoshin-plan 2a- Find a Mission Statement At this point, I have a mission statement I aspire to live by. The first year, I didn't. I picked a quote from a sefer that at the time (and still) really moved me. Look for something from a seifer (including the siddur) that sums up life's mission for you. Is it about deveiqus? And if about deveiqus -- what does that mean to you? Knowledge (as per the Rambam)? Experiencing the Divine? Having a relationship with Hashem? Partnering with Him in His Work -- and what is His Work? Or maybe you see it in terms of sheleimus or temimus. But then, what is a person supposed to be, that you can talk about being more perfect at being one? Is it emulating Hashem? Or bein adam lachaveiro? Or maybe you're on another page altogether -- you see the Torah's mission for your life in terms of Jewish Nationhood, or humanity. And I realize many of those will yield different phrasing of nearly the same answer. But only nearly the same. There could be situations where connotations matter and have a nafqa mina lemaaseh. But in any case, it has to be moving and inspiring based on the way HQBH made you. In short -- a sentence or two about how you see what the Torah is telling you to be at this point in your life. After the first year, you tweak it and revise it as you change. 2b- Drilling down A Mission Statement is pointless if it doesn't have a way to influence action. In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for the firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could help reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division. His group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc... The idea is that there is an individual programmer like myself can be shown how my program fits in the team's goal, the group's goal and so on up to the firm's goal as written up in the Mission Statement. Similarly life's Mission Statement. We can divide it and subdivide it into managable lists. Maybe three bullet items as top-level goals to make the mission statament happen. And 2-4 each for each of those goals to make subgoals and so on. The idea is to get to the point that when you decide to go to the kitchen to get a cup of coffee, you have a way to relate that decision to the approach to living al pi haTorah that you framed for yourself. Let me give an example, taken from the above blog page. Since I wrote a book based on R Shimon's haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher, the quote would be no surprise. For that matter, ch. 2 is titled "Mission Statement" and is a collection of thoughts about the openining sentence of the haqdamah. See the first paragraph of the copy in Widen Your Tent sec 1.1, pg 45 of the book or pg 4 of https://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf#page=4 So, my orignal mission statement translates to (it is important to be in first person singular): [My] greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that [I] walk in His ways. Now I can divide that into three subgoals: - Having a connection to G-d - Internalizing His Will - Being a conduit of Hashem's Good into the lives of others. Internalizing His will, for example, was first subdivided into - Daily learning (which is what drives projects like AhS Yomi) - Daily Mussar work (like what I'm describing in this post), and - Regular in-depth learning -- chavrusos, shiurim, etc... Notice at this point I can start filling in things I can do this year. What learning? Which shiurim? As in part 1 -- which middos and what are the first months' exercises to chip away at them. (And buying a pretty new notebook. Somehow I do best at cheshbon hanefesh when I have a kewl new toy to do it with.) Hopefully, by month end when this "Spiritual Hoshin Plan" is done, I can pause in the middle of the workday and be able to say for myself that I'm putting up with this irate trader on the phone (I work for a Hedge Fund) so that I can pay for tuition (goal 3.2.4.2.5 or some-such), I can develop my personal creativity (as per 1.2... as being in the image of the Creator is something I view as a Mussar goal), etc.. And thereby give sanctity to an otherwise mundane (and stressfull) activity. And then every year things shift. Both in how I look at the world and in what are the pressing issues requiring more attention. Where parenting sits in the hierarchy was very different when I started than now that my youngest is a teenager. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. http://www.aishdas.org/asp It preserves health, promotes convalescence, Author: Widen Your Tent and helps us cope with adversity. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 12:46:48 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:46:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901194648.GB18013@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:45:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In > the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: >> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly >> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any >> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have >> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or >> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected >> on a dangerous road)." > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed > through unnoticed? Does it say that unnoticed strangers are included? The gemara (Sotah 46b) says (original at https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.9 ): Would it cross our minds that BD were murderers? Rather [they are saying]: He did not come to us and we dismissed him without food. We didn't see him and leave him without accompaniment. My translation matches the TMS's, minus their parenthetic comments. (Which I will now assume is the author's insertions, rather than part of the medrash.) The two phrases "lo ba leyadeinu" and "vera'inhu" seem to me to mean the BD are saying that the didn't neglect anyone they knew of. That not knowing the person was in town would be one of the reasons they wouldn't be guilty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the http://www.aishdas.org/asp better if possible, and of changing himself for Author: Widen Your Tent the better if necessary. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 05:00:31 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos Message-ID: . Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day away. I think it is assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. In contrast, if I request Monday delivery, that would be okay, even though I know that they'll be working for me on Shabbos, because it was their choice to work on Saturday rather than Sunday. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 07:11:20 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:11:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:00:31AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? Well, if there isn't a contracted delivery date of Shabbos, then it's their choice whether to do melakhah for you on Shabbos, Friday or Sunday. The package could sit around in a transfer facility for 25 hours while they deal with more urgent packages if it's not the delivery date. The choice is theirs. But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. I guess in the case of (eg) 3 day delivery, since it wouldn't violate the contract to get it there in 2, someone might argue that you aren't asking them to do the delivery on Shabbos. But I don't know if mutar alternatives matter even when they're implausible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Sep 2 11:46:49 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:46:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66cf413b-bbfa-c02e-885f-8a8bb7e152ce@sero.name> On 2/9/20 8:00 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day > away. I think it is?assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know > that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. I agree, *if* you know where it's coming from, and that it's not bich'dei sheyei'asu without working on Shabbos. But in the general case you don't know that, and I don't see why you have to worry about it just on spec. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 17:45:46 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:45:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said that it is better to daven a > little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that > selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more than 15 > minutes, IIRC. It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time that's been taken from them. Much more important is the speed at which it is said. If the length of time would remain constant, but pages were skipped so that the rest could be said carefully and attentively, THAT'S what Chazal meant by "better to daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Sep 2 13:49:48 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:49:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. ------------------------------- And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's Saturday delivery and you say nothing? KVCT 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 akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 18:08:38 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:08:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: . In the thread "Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im", R' Arie Folger wrote: > By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper > recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused > wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata > Hu E-loheinu. > > In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to > read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next > line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the > opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, > so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the > proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. I can see where some people might read the above, and feel that Rabbi Folger is being subjective and arbitrary in his choices of "proper" and "wrong". I had my brain all psyched up to spend the next hour or so writing a post to explain how he is objectively correct, and then I remembered that we covered this ground four years ago. Anyone who wants to learn more about how the recitation of these piyutim got messed up is strongly invited to review the thread "conservatism in davening" at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CONSERVATISM%20IN%20DAVENING Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mzeldman2 at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 00:33:32 2020 From: mzeldman2 at gmail.com (Moshe Zeldman) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 10:33:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If one should not say ?starting YK I will never...?, then how does that fit with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the vidui is saying ?and I will never do X again?? It sounds difficult to read into the Rambam that he means ?I?m still going to be doing X but I have a plan to eventually stop? On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 4:12 wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > > avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/ > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms > > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Hashem your G-d (Zvi Lampel) > > 2. Re: Hashem your G-d (Micha Berger) > > 3. Re: What to do in Elul? (Micha Berger) > > 4. Re: It's not our fault (Micha Berger) > > 5. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Akiva Miller) > > 6. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Micha Berger) > > 7. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Zev Sero) > > 8. Re: Davening at home on Yamim Noraim (Akiva Miller) > > 9. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Rich, Joel) > > 10. Re: conservatism in davening (Akiva Miller) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:53:18 -0400 > > From: Zvi Lampel > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , > > Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d > > Message-ID: > > < > CAPxEyabfrsb8kDLQzd7BTYpcZcQqOcyaDrjdZbyW8pD-K46QbA at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > > > > > > > > From: Akiva Miller > > > > > > In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today > > > to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) > > > > > > Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > > > > > This may happen elsewhere too, > > > > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher > > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers > > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > > G-d of Avraham, etc. Therefore, the layman refers to the G-d of the Kohane, > > whose biblical role is to teach of Hashem and His Torah and therefore > > conceptualized Hashem more accurately. > > > > (I would have to concede that at first sight this does not work in > > cases where the person bringing the Bikkurim is actually greater than the > > Kohane. One can answer that it's a matter of *lo plug, *using a fixed > > formula for everyone at all times, following the normal situation. Or I > > would modify my explanation to say that the Kohane may not necessarily have > > a higher conceptualization but, through his avodah, a unique one not shared > > by others, which is relevant to the Bikkurim bringer in his role as such.) > > > > but this case stands out because the form > > > changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out > to > > > Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the > contrast?... > > > > > > > I think the above explanation works to explain this. In fact, note that the > > farmer is referring to the G-d of our "ancestors," meaning G-d as > > understood by the avos. > > > > Zvi Lampel > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200901/89f8687e/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:29:01 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller , Zvi Lampel > > > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d > > Message-ID: <20200901192901.GA18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:53:18AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > > >> Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > > > > > This may happen elsewhere too, > > > > > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are > higher > > > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and > refers > > > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > > > G-d of Avraham, etc... > > > > I would have written something very similar, if RAM's email weren't still > > flagged "to do" in my email box when RZL's came in. > > > > However, I wouldn't have used the word "hasagah". I would have talked about > > the need to list "E-lokei Avraham", "E-lokai Yitzchaq" and "E-lokai Yaaqov" > > separately. > > > > To me, it speaks to the idea that the avos each had distinct relationships > > with the Borei. The "G-d of Avraham" was a different relationship than > > the G-d Yitzchaq "had" (kevayakhol). > > > > I don't know how RZL meant the word "hasagah", but to me it speaks to > knowing > > *about* something. As in greater people have greater understandings of what > > G-d is. > > > > I would instead has said that "E-lokekha" is about the G-d the kohein has > > time to relate to more constantly than the farmer does. > > > > And it might also make the Vidui a statement about the farmer's > > relationship with G-d. Rather than who has more relationship, but about > > kidn of relationship. > > > > After all, the kohein may be learning, teaching and doing avodah all > > day, but the farmer teams up with G-d and relies on G-d to produce his > > crop. That's the point of the vidui -- that the G-d of Yetzias Mitzrayim > > gets credit for more day-to-day things my success. Something a kohein > > may only get more vicariously. > > > > So, he's saying to the kohein, "G-d is not only how you relate to Him > > from your ivory tower -- 'Your G-d', realize He also is intimately > > involved in my life and everyday life." > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger If you're going through hell > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. > > Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > PS: Interesting quote my signature generator chose from the perspective > > of being this close to the end of 5780. (Although we must remember, we > > are likely the first generation for whom life is normally so wonderful, > > this year qualified as a notably "bad" one.) > > > > -- > > Micha Berger If you're going through hell > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. > > Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:54:36 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: avodah at aishdas.org, Ken Bloom > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? > > Message-ID: <20200901225436.GC18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:30:40PM -0400, Ken Bloom wrote: > > > Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what > one > > > should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in > > > finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. > > > > I'll give you "or elsewhere". Here's what I do. > > > > 1- > > > > During the year, I try to keep a cheshbon hanefesh. Laziness and momentum > > being what it is, that means that I usually have a journal of the decisions > > and reactions of a few 1 to 2 month stretches during the year. > > > > So, something I do early in Elul is review those, see patterns, what > > changed during the gaps... And trying to compensate changes because I > > was just focused on different things in different parts of the year. > > I then try to mentally fill in the gaps, as I can. And then I make a > > list of those issues in my reactions, decisions and actions that seem > > to have recurred a lot. It's often not the issues I was thinking I was > > failing at before I looked through notes. > > > > For that matter, even if you "just" keep a diary of your responses to the > > week -- not what happened to you, but how you responded to it -- from now > > to RH would give more insight to what habits and middos might really need > > the most attention. > > > > And to make that list, I try for a list of 2 to 4 items that both need the > > most attention and yet balanced with things I can actually tackle. For > > example, I have a long-running battle with ka'as. But it may not be > > the chink in the armor most ready to move. I might want to work on my > > frustration threshold, noting that my temper is very often the sum of > > frustration plus having someone I can pin blame on. > > > > And the plan has to be incremental. Not "starting YK I never will..." > > or "will always", but "starting YK I will take the first step to... > > which is..." > > > > For exmple, not expressing frustration in a given set of situations. > > Or maybe right after work for the first hour I'm home. Or whatever. > > > > 2- > > > > So much for correcting past mistakes. My other step is something > > Bank of America mislabeled Hoshin Planning that I adapted for life. > > > > https://www.aishdas.org/asp/hoshin-plan > > > > 2a- Find a Mission Statement > > > > At this point, I have a mission statement I aspire to live by. > > > > The first year, I didn't. I picked a quote from a sefer that at the time > > (and still) really moved me. Look for something from a seifer (including > > the siddur) that sums up life's mission for you. Is it about deveiqus? > > And if about deveiqus -- what does that mean to you? Knowledge (as per > > the Rambam)? Experiencing the Divine? Having a relationship with Hashem? > > Partnering with Him in His Work -- and what is His Work? Or maybe you see > > it in terms of sheleimus or temimus. But then, what is a person supposed > > to be, that you can talk about being more perfect at being one? Is it > > emulating Hashem? Or bein adam lachaveiro? Or maybe you're on another > > page altogether -- you see the Torah's mission for your life in terms > > of Jewish Nationhood, or humanity. > > > > And I realize many of those will yield different phrasing of nearly the > same > > answer. But only nearly the same. There could be situations where > connotations > > matter and have a nafqa mina lemaaseh. But in any case, it has to be moving > > and inspiring based on the way HQBH made you. > > > > In short -- a sentence or two about how you see what the Torah is telling > > you to be at this point in your life. > > > > After the first year, you tweak it and revise it as you change. > > > > 2b- Drilling down > > > > A Mission Statement is pointless if it doesn't have a way to influence > > action. > > > > In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for the > > firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could help > > reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division. His > > group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc... The idea is that > > there is an individual programmer like myself can be shown how my program > > fits in the team's goal, the group's goal and so on up to the firm's goal > > as written up in the Mission Statement. > > > > Similarly life's Mission Statement. We can divide it and subdivide it > > into managable lists. Maybe three bullet items as top-level goals to > > make the mission statament happen. And 2-4 each for each of those > > goals to make subgoals and so on. > > > > The idea is to get to the point that when you decide to go to the kitchen > > to get a cup of coffee, you have a way to relate that decision to the > > approach to living al pi haTorah that you framed for yourself. > > > > Let me give an example, taken from the above blog page. > > > > Since I wrote a book based on R Shimon's haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher, > > the quote would be no surprise. For that matter, ch. 2 is titled > > "Mission Statement" and is a collection of thoughts about the > > openining sentence of the haqdamah. See the first paragraph of > > the copy in Widen Your Tent sec 1.1, pg 45 of the book or pg 4 of > > https://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf#page=4 > > > > So, my orignal mission statement translates to (it is important to > > be in first person singular): > > [My] greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals > > and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator > > (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according > > to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the > > creations. So too His Will is that [I] walk in His ways. > > > > Now I can divide that into three subgoals: > > - Having a connection to G-d > > - Internalizing His Will > > - Being a conduit of Hashem's Good into the lives of others. > > > > Internalizing His will, for example, was first subdivided into > > - Daily learning (which is what drives projects like AhS Yomi) > > - Daily Mussar work (like what I'm describing in this post), and > > - Regular in-depth learning -- chavrusos, shiurim, etc... > > > > Notice at this point I can start filling in things I can do this year. > > What learning? Which shiurim? As in part 1 -- which middos and what are > > the first months' exercises to chip away at them. (And buying a pretty > > new notebook. Somehow I do best at cheshbon hanefesh when I have a > > kewl new toy to do it with.) > > > > Hopefully, by month end when this "Spiritual Hoshin Plan" is done, I > > can pause in the middle of the workday and be able to say for myself > > that I'm putting up with this irate trader on the phone (I work for a > > Hedge Fund) so that I can pay for tuition (goal 3.2.4.2.5 or some-such), > > I can develop my personal creativity (as per 1.2... as being in the > > image of the Creator is something I view as a Mussar goal), etc.. And > > thereby give sanctity to an otherwise mundane (and stressfull) activity. > > > > And then every year things shift. Both in how I look at the world and in > > what are the pressing issues requiring more attention. Where parenting > > sits in the hierarchy was very different when I started than now that my > > youngest is a teenager. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable > treasure. > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp It preserves health, promotes convalescence, > > Author: Widen Your Tent and helps us cope with adversity. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of > Mishlei" > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:46:48 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] It's not our fault > > Message-ID: <20200901194648.GB18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:45:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > > > I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In > > > the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: > > > > >> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly > > >> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any > > >> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have > > >> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or > > >> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected > > >> on a dangerous road)." > > > > > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > > > > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have > passed > > > through unnoticed? > > > > Does it say that unnoticed strangers are included? > > > > The gemara (Sotah 46b) says (original at > https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.9 ): > > Would it cross our minds that BD were murderers? > > > > Rather [they are saying]: He did not come to us and we dismissed him > > without food. We didn't see him and leave him without accompaniment. > > > > My translation matches the TMS's, minus their parenthetic comments. (Which > > I will now assume is the author's insertions, rather than part of the > > medrash.) > > > > The two phrases "lo ba leyadeinu" and "vera'inhu" seem to me to mean > > the BD are saying that the didn't neglect anyone they knew of. That not > > knowing the person was in town would be one of the reasons they wouldn't > > be guilty. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp better if possible, and of changing himself > for > > Author: Widen Your Tent the better if necessary. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Victor Frankl, Man's search for > Meaning > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:31 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: > > KNCNNA at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on > > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? > > > > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day away. I > > think it is assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know that it won't > > be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. In contrast, > > if I request Monday delivery, that would be okay, even though I know that > > they'll be working for me on Shabbos, because it was their choice to work > > on Saturday rather than Sunday. > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/5837fd1d/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:11:20 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: <20200902141120.GA27483 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:00:31AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus > on > > > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? > > > > Well, if there isn't a contracted delivery date of Shabbos, then it's > > their choice whether to do melakhah for you on Shabbos, Friday or Sunday. > > The package could sit around in a transfer facility for 25 hours while > > they deal with more urgent packages if it's not the delivery date. The > > choice is theirs. > > > > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > > > > I guess in the case of (eg) 3 day delivery, since it wouldn't violate the > > contract to get it there in 2, someone might argue that you aren't > > asking them to do the delivery on Shabbos. But I don't know if mutar > > alternatives matter even when they're implausible. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his > fellow > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew > worries > > Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's > stomach. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:46:49 -0400 > > From: Zev Sero > > To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: <66cf413b-bbfa-c02e-885f-8a8bb7e152ce at sero.name> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > > On 2/9/20 8:00 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day > > > away. I think it is?assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know > > > that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during > Shabbos. > > > > I agree, *if* you know where it's coming from, and that it's not > > bich'dei sheyei'asu without working on Shabbos. But in the general case > > you don't know that, and I don't see why you have to worry about it just > > on spec. > > > > -- > > Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer > > zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:45:46 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim > > Message-ID: > > < > CABiM0c+1patT7b5FcLCxbn8wuZsCXzmoGyC846J6cQxP-9JJjQ at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > > > > > Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said that it is better to daven a > > > little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that > > > selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more than 15 > > > minutes, IIRC. > > > > It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing > > to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better > > than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time > > that's been taken from them. > > > > Much more important is the speed at which it is said. If the length of time > > would remain constant, but pages were skipped so that the rest could be > > said carefully and attentively, THAT'S what Chazal meant by "better to > > daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without." > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/455f462f/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 9 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:49:48 +0000 > > From: "Rich, Joel" > > To: 'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group' > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: > > < > CY4PR02MB25993558995FE1F789868116BF2F0 at CY4PR02MB2599.namprd02.prod.outlook.com > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > > ------------------------------- > > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's > Saturday delivery and you say nothing? > > KVCT > > 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 10 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:08:38 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] conservatism in davening > > Message-ID: > > < > CABiM0cJ4esqYBS9zWh5bP1UnGZYs67zrTwZ+HeYOcVVLWc9ULw at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > In the thread "Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im", R' Arie Folger wrote: > > > > > By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper > > > recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused > > > wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata > > > Hu E-loheinu. > > > > > > In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to > > > read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next > > > line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the > > > opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, > > > so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the > > > proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. > > > > I can see where some people might read the above, and feel that Rabbi > > Folger is being subjective and arbitrary in his choices of "proper" and > > "wrong". I had my brain all psyched up to spend the next hour or so writing > > a post to explain how he is objectively correct, and then I remembered that > > we covered this ground four years ago. > > > > Anyone who wants to learn more about how the recitation of these piyutim > > got messed up is strongly invited to review the thread "conservatism in > > davening" at > > > https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CONSERVATISM%20IN%20DAVENING > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/fc503c3c/attachment.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Avodah mailing list > > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah > > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 38, Issue 72 > > ************************************** > > -- ----------------------------- Moshe Zeldman Israel: (+972) 54 256 2888 US/Canada: 647 580 8965 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 18:34:46 2020 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:34:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d Message-ID: In Avodah V38n72, RZL noted: > This may happen elsewhere too < The first example which came into my mind when I saw RAMiller's message was a phrase in the P'Zachor *haftara* -- see I Sam 15:15. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 3 09:09:03 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 12:09:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <15e6bfd6-3399-dbb5-a721-6671f0b31da4@sero.name> On 2/9/20 4:49 pm, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > ------------------------------- > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's Saturday delivery and you say nothing? That should be fine. It's their decision, not yours. You told them you don't mind if they deliver it on Sunday. It's the same as dropping something off at the cleaners right before Shabbos and telling them you want it by 6 AM on Sunday. Since they could work on it all night Motzei Shabbos, you're fine, even though you know they will choose not to. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 18:13:02 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 21:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul Message-ID: . R' Moshe Zeldman asked: > If one should not say "starting YK I will never...", then how > does that fit with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the > vidui is saying "and I will never do X again"? > It sounds difficult to read into the Rambam that he means "I'm > still going to be doing X but I have a plan to eventually stop" Yes, the Rambam does say that at the beginning of Perek 1. But Perek 2 is all about less-than-ideal sorts of teshuva. I concede that I didn't notice the Rambam explicitly mentioning this weaning as a legitimate less-than-ideal form of teshuva. But still, it is hard for me to imagine that he would invalidate someone who said, "I did it, and I should not have done it, and I feel sorry that I did it, and in the future I will do it less than I used to." And even if the Rambam *would* say that such a person has *not* done teshuva, remember the context in which this idea was suggested: a person who has repeatedly found this particular aveira unusually difficult to conquer. Imagine further, that this person succeeds in a slow elimination of this aveira, and after many years - decades perhaps - he has finally conquered it. Such a person would certainly be no less of a Baal Teshuva than the one who the Rambam described in the middle section of halacha 2:1: "Even if he didn't do teshuva until his elderly days, and when it was impossible for his to do what he used to do, even though it's not an excellent teshuva, it still helps him, and he is a Baal Teshuva." Please note that this person described by the Rambam did not even begin regretting his sins until he was too old to do them. That's NOT the case we're discussing. We're discussing someone who still has to battle the yetzer hara. I can't help but wonder if this person, who executed a long, slow, but ultimately successful plan, might get the mitzva of Teshuva retroactively, to the beginning of that plan, maybe even according to the Rambam. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 10:43:29 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:43:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200904174329.GB3095@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:33:32AM +0300, Moshe Zeldman via Avodah wrote: > If one should not say "starting YK I will never...", then how does that fit > with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the vidui is saying "and I > will never do X again"? I'm going to shift topics a little from what the Rambam says should be done to what experience (and 20th cent Mussar sefarim) has shown does work. Lots of diets I promised myself I would start right after the chagim never happened. So, I don't think there is much commitment in "starting YK I will never..." Maybe we should be following the incremental approach... Promising now to take steps that by Yom Kippur I would be up to not doing X again, and by Chanukah not doing X-1, and by Pesach, X-2, and by next YK... Again, not claiming you can read that into the Rambam. But it does fit the Rambam's requirements for vidui while still having more chance of success than expecitng to be able to permanently change habits and character on a dime. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. http://www.aishdas.org/asp The purpose of life Author: Widen Your Tent is to give it away. -- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -- Pablo Picasso From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 10:58:49 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:58:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200904175849.GC3095@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:45:46PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing > to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better > than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time > that's been taken from them. Speaking specifically of "echad hamarbeh. ve'echad hamam'it..." and not trying to fit more services into the same number of rooms in the same morning or other pandemic issues... The idea is usually invoked for those of us who abbreviate Pesuqei deZimra in order to say fewer peraqim of Tehillim in the same time the minyan is saying more of them. Not to save time, but to spend more thought and similar time on fewer actions (in this case, speech). BUT... The past century has seen a HUGE shrinkage (sorry for the oxymoron) in attention spans. So, the more likely alternative of 15 minutes of rushed mumbeling may be better than an hour of mumbling while one's mind wanders. For many people, even on Yamim Noraim. May even have a net minus in the minimal kavanah of a rushed mumble. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] http://www.aishdas.org/asp isn't complete with being careful in the laws Author: Widen Your Tent of Passover. One must also be very careful in - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:48:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 14:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20200904184852.GD3095@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:49:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >> But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after >> hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's > Saturday delivery and you say nothing? Can it depend on who makes the decision? What if I ask one set of people to deliver my package, but another set of people make it impossible for them to get into the warehouse / vehicle on Sunday? And if I could guess as much that even if they wanted to deliver on Sunday it's not really in their power to do so? :-)BBii! -Micha From seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:25 2020 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2020 10:31:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avos - Shepherds Message-ID: The Avos ? Forefathers - (and Moshe Rabbeinu and Dovid HaMelech and others) were shepherds. Did they eat sheep? The few times when eating from the flock is mentioned, it seems to be goats (eg, Rivka feeding Yitzchak). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Sep 6 13:24:42 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:24:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Use a Public Grill? Message-ID: >From https://www.kosher.com/lifestyle/can-one-use-a-public-grill-1259 [https://www.kosher.com/resized/open_graph/s/h/shutterstock_442567648_banner.jpg] Can One Use a Public Grill? | Lifestyle | Kosher.com Shailah of the Week by Rabbi Zvi Nussbaum Rabbinic Coordinator, Kosher Hotline Administrator for the Orthodox Union Since a campground grill has been used to cook non-kosher foods (non-kosher meats and fish...), it may not be used unless it is properly kashered. The only way to kasher a gr... www.kosher.com Since a campground grill has been used to cook non-kosher foods (non-kosher meats and fish...), it may not be used unless it is properly kashered. The only way to kasher a grill top is with libun gamur (heating until the entire surface of the grill top rack becomes red hot). This can be accomplished by submerging the surface of the grill into burning charcoal. Even if the grill was used within the past 24 hours to cook non-kosher, and even if the grill had not been cleaned, it may still be kashered in this manner, since the intense heat will burn up all non-kosher residue and taste. There is no need to tovel the grill (immerse the grill in a mikvah), since it does not belong to you. It is owned by the park. Instead of kashering the grill, an easier option is to bring along your own grill top and a couple of bricks. If the non-kosher grill can be lifted out of the way, the kosher grill may be put in its place, balanced on the bricks. If you purchase a new grill top, it must be toveled before it is used. A third option is to double wrap your food with two layers of aluminum foil. Once properly wrapped, they may be placed directly on the non-kosher grill. In this case, it is better to clean the grill top first, or let the coals burn off the grease, before placing the double-wrapped food on top. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Sep 6 13:49:28 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:49:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pas Yisroel Message-ID: See https://www.crcweb.org/Pas%20Yisroel%20article%20.pdf Pas Yisroel during Aseres Y?mei Teshuvah Pas Yisroel By: Rabbi Dovid Cohen Administrative Rabbinic Coordinator, cRc Background In the times of the Mishnah, and possible even earlier, Chazal www.crcweb.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Sep 7 04:02:28 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:02:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] 10PM Slichot Message-ID: Anyone know why R' Moshe in O"C 2:105 didn't suggest pre-shacharit slichot rather than 10Pm slichot as a stand in for chatzot (midnight) slichot on the first night of slichot when there was a clear and present danger? Kvct 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 michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 11:26:57 2020 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:26:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another example, seen via this week's ShMOT: Deu 31 :26. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolberg at yebo.co.za Mon Sep 7 03:41:23 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 12:41:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 Message-ID: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> "And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. And so paskened the Geonei Olam for about [the last] eighty years. And this is the essential halocha." I have several questions about this. 1. Surely the use of Yiddish translations was very common and accepted? 2. Is this a response to the Reform use of German translations? 3. While the translation of the Shema might be problematic, translation of shemoneh esrei and brochas is surely not the same issue? From zev at sero.name Tue Sep 8 08:01:13 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 11:01:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10PM Slichot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0c0a2053-cf70-2689-d048-d3d3a7c9eab4@sero.name> On 7/9/20 7:02 am, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Anyone know why R? Moshe in O?C 2:105 didn?t suggest pre-shacharit > slichot rather than 10Pm slichot as a stand in for chatzot (midnight) > slichot on the first night of slichot when there was a clear and present > danger? The teshuva isn't about the first night, it's about all the days of selichos, and the situation is that it's impossible to do it either at midnight *or* before dawn. He takes it for granted that selichos must be said at night, Kumi Roni Valayla, and at an Eis Ratzon, which means any time between midnight and dawn, and says the minhag to do it at the end of the night, before dawn, is for convenience. So he reluctantly allows it after the first third of the night, with the proviso that it must be publicised that this is a hora'as sha'ah. Why doesn't he even consider doing it in the morning after daylight? I can think of two possibilities: Perhaps because selichos must be at night; or perhaps because people have to go to work and can't fit selichos in at their normal time for shacharis, and it's already posited in the question that for some reason they can't start earlier. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781 zev at sero.name "May this year and its curses end May a new year and its blessings begin" From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 11:43:48 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 14:43:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dates from Ancient Genes and Koseves Message-ID: <20200908184348.GA9440@aishdas.org> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/07/world/middleeast/israel-judean-dates-agriculture.html KETURA, Israel The plump, golden-brown dates hanging in a bunch just above the sandy soil were finally ready to pick. They had been slowly ripening in the desert heat for months. But the young tree on which they grew had a much more ancient history sprouting from a 2,000-year-old seed retrieved from an archaeological site in the Judean wilderness. Quick, can someone get the volume of these things before Yom Kippur? Kidding aside.... Do people think that the shiur of a kekoseves should be re-assessed, if necessary, based on this newly available data? RYBS, and his version of R Chaim's argument against Radziner tekheiles (or his argument against assuming orez = rice) would imply we don't. Halakhah can only be founded upon mesorah, not scientific data. My summary of that section of Nefesh haRav is at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n073.shtml#12 Anyone want to provide meqoros for other opinions? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... http://www.aishdas.org/asp ... but you're the pilot. Author: Widen Your Tent - R' Zelig Pliskin - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Sep 8 17:48:57 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 00:48:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] directed donations Message-ID: Question someone I know got concerning a contribution: Do you want your donation to the shul to be ?????? ???? ??? Response: I?d go with anonymous and pray that hkbh directs his accountant to allocate it to where it?s most needed. As a matter fact maybe that should be the inscription Thoughts? Kvct 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 llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 9 05:50:41 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 12:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 565:5) writes that the ?Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim? (thirteen attributes of mercy, Shemos 34:6-7) may not be recited unless there is a minyan. When these pesukim are recited in the context of prayer, they have the elevated status of a ?davar she?bikedusha,? like Kaddish or Kedusha, that may only be said in the presence of a minyan. The Mishnah Berurah (581:4) writes that Selichos that mention the Yud Gimmel Middos may be said, provided that those lines are skipped. If one prefers to say the Yud Gimmel Middos, he may do so if he recites them with the trop (cantillation) used for krias haTorah, as that indicates that it is not being recited as a tefillah (M?B 565:12). Mishnah Berurah also adds that any Selichos that are written in Aramaic should be skipped. The basis for this is the Gemara (Sotah 33a), in which Rebbi Yochanan states that angels do not deliver prayers that were recited in Aramaic, but when praying with a minyan one does not need the assistance of angels. Hashem?s presence is in the midst of the minyan and there is no need for angelic intervention. The Mishnah Berurah concludes, if there is no minyan at the beginning of Selichos, Kaddish is not said after Ashrei. Instead, the group should begin reciting Selichos. When the tenth man arrives, the congregation should recite three pesukim together, recite Kaddish and then continue from where they left off. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Sep 10 05:44:42 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:44:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When to Say Se;lichos Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. What is preferable? To wake up early and recite Selichos before dawn (a.k.a. alos hashachar, which is 72 minutes before sunrise), or to stay up late and recite Selichos after chatzos (midnight)? What about saying selichos after alos or after neitz hachama (sunrise)? A. Rav Yitzchak Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Yoma 22a) writes that the preferred time to recite Selichos is before dawn. This can be inferred from the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 3:4) who writes that it is customay to awake at night and recite Selichos until the morning. In addition, Mishnah Berurah (581:1) writes that the end of the night is an eis rotzon (a propitious time when G-d is receptive to prayer), implying that the early mornoing is the most appropriate time for Selichos. Finally, the She?arim Metzuyanim B?Halacah (Yoma 22a) notes that Selichos recited in the early morning is more effective, since it is recited through greater sacrifice; it is more difficult to wake up early than to stay up late. May Selichos be rected after sunrise? Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Divrei Si?ach, vol. 134) holds that it is preferable to recite Selichos after Chatzos than to recite Selichos later in the day after sunrise. On the otherhand, Rav Elyashav and Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach take an oposite opinion and write that it is better to recite Selichos in the daytime (even after sunrise) than to say it after chatzos (quoted in MB Dirshu MB, 581:1). Similiary, the Aruch Hashulchan writes that it has been customary to say selichos in the morning after sunrise for many generations. On the other hand, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt?l (Igros Moshe OC, 2:105) writes that kabalistically, the period after chatzos is as much an eis ratzon as early dawn, and for this reason, for many generations, it has been customary to recite Selichos at night after chatzos. This is also the opinion of the Minchas Elazar (the previous Munkatcher Rebbi), as recorded in Divrei Torah (141:76). Even those who recomend saying selichos in early morning before sunrise agree that on the first night of Selichos, on Motzei Shabbos, it is preferable to recite Selichos after Chatzos. This is because we wish to combine the merit of Shabbos together with the first Selichos. Therefore, we begin Selichos after Chatzos, and do not wait for the early morning (Chashukei Chemed, ibid.). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 15:12:12 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:12:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 In-Reply-To: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> References: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> Message-ID: <20200910221212.GB12180@aishdas.org> Sidenote: This se'if was recently studied by Arukh haShulchan Yomi. If you want to join us learning AhS Yomi, see the tools -- calendar, text, RYGB's YouTube playlist -- at http://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi ! AhS Yomi covers OC and the applicable portions of YD. (From egg spots to aveilus.) On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:41:23PM +0200, wolberg via Avodah wrote: >> And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the Shema and >> Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. >> And so paskened the Geonei Olam for about [the last] eighty years. And >> this is the essential halocha." ... > 1. Surely the use of Yiddish translations was very common and accepted? For women, yes. In fact, there is a script called Vaibrteitch because translations were in general considered for women. ("Women's Translation". "Teitch" evolved from the language name "Deutch".) Vaibrteitch is different than Rashi script. See examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaybertaytsh > 2. Is this a response to the Reform use of German translations? Likely. That bit about how they used to know Hebrew better is suspiciously post-facto sounding. Maybe when translating to another Semitic language, or to Greek using a millenia old tradition of Hebrew to Greek equivalences, we could have done better than we can to English. However, 600 years ago, translating to German, French or Spanish... No matter how well you know Hebrew, there is simply no close parallel to translate words to. A personal favorite when teaching Mussar is "yir'ah". Yir'ah is a range from awe to fear. Maybe the closest is "awareness of the magnitude of what you're facing" -- whether with admiration (awe) or thinking about risk (fear) or in another way. But because we are thinking "awe or fear" instead of a single concept, we cannot think about the middah of yir'as Shamayim in a fully authentic way. It's not two thing with an "or", or with a second thought about how they're related. It's a single territory that should be part of our gut's language about how we're feeling at a given point in time. In any case, it is true that real translation is impossible. I would faster *guess* that a machloqes about how close a translation may be got closed because the response to Reform forced our hand to choose one shitah over the other. > 3. While the translation of the Shema might be problematic, translation > of shemoneh esrei and brochas is surely not the same issue? Well, we cannot translation "Barukh Atah Hashem", at least not "barukh" or "Hashem" in any precise way. So, maybe not. I am not sure people really know what they mean when they say "blessed". But what is Barukh? - Source of increase - Maximally increased - May You -- in the form of the expression of Your Will in this world -- be incresed - An intentional ambiguity of all of the above? And sheim havayah pronounced as Adnus... - The Atemporal - The All-Compassionate - The Transcendent - The L-rd of All Etc... I would faster think the baqashos would be okay more than berakhos in general. Or maybe the body of the berakhah until the chasimah. As long as the translation is close enough so that it opens and wraps up with me'ein hachasimah. But lemaaseh, the AhS says that's not what "we hold". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. http://www.aishdas.org/asp - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:50:27 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Torah Musings] Why Did the Holocaust Happen Message-ID: <20200911175027.GA23887@aishdas.org> A survey by R Gil Student. https://www.torahmusings.com/2020/09/why-did-the-holocaust-happen/ (And a couple of the comments on his post.) :-)BBii! -Micha Torah Musing Why Did the Holocaust Happen? Posted by: Gil Student Posts Sep 7, 2020 As I reviewed the weekly Torah reading for this past Shabbos, which includes the tochekhah (Deut. 28), I was taken back to my teenage years, reading it one Saturday or Sunday afternoon and seeing Jewish history in it. To a non-religious Jewish teenager in the 1980's who grew up among survivors, the question of God in the Holocaust was not a faith issue that could be ignored. Reading the biblical text with minimal commentary (I think I used S.L. Gordon's secular commentary), I saw a prophecy that sin would lead to the kind of inhuman devastation seen in the Holocaust, a prediction that was fulfilled thousands of years later. To me, the Holocaust was not an impediment to faith but a convincing proof of Judaism's truth claims. Not everyone sees it that way. Many are offended by the very claim that the Holocaust was a divine punishment, although often due to objections that miss important discussions in traditional Jewish literature which we will mention briefly below. The issues are so sensitive, and during the 1970's and 1980's in particular the denominational conflicts were so strong, that unnecessarily forceful rhetoric turned an issue of faith into a weapon. In my opinion, a legitimate theological view has been dismissed due to heightened sensitivities and denominational politics. I. Five Approaches to the Holocaust Modern Orthodoxy has developed two main theologies of the Holocaust: 1) Hester Panim - God hid His face, turned away, and let mankind unleash wanton violence. R. Norman Lamm takes this approach in his [51]"The Face of God: Thoughts of the Holocaust". It is important to note that God hides His face (Deut. 31:17) due to Jewish sins (ibid., 16). (Some claim that brief mentions of hester panim by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik in his Kol Dodi Dofek constitute his adoption of this approach, but see R. Reuven Ziegler, Majesty and Humility, p. 277 n. 4, where he dismisses this interpretation.) 2) Free Will - God allows mankind the free will to sin, which includes the ability to murder and torture others. R. Eliezer Berkovits advocates this approach in his Faith After the Holocaust. The alternative approaches generally discussed are: 3) Anti-Zionism - The Satmar Rebbe's argument that Zionism led to the Holocaust, in his [52]Al Ha-Ge'ulah Ve-Al Ha-Temurah. 4) Zionism - The Religious Zionist argument that the Holocaust paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel. This view is attributed to R. Zvi Yehudah Kook (see Aviezer Ravitzky, Messianism, Zionism and Jewish Religious Radicalism, pp. 126-128). 5) Secularization - R. Avigdor Miller popularized the view that the assimilation and secularization of Jews in the 150 years prior to the Holocaust resulted in this punishment. R. Norman Lamm quotes this from R. Miller's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 278-279) and you can find quotes on the subject by searching [53]TorasAvigdor.org for the word "Holocaust". (A reader informed me that R. Miller has a book on the subject was posthumously published -- [54]A Divine Madness: Rabbi Avigdor Miller's Defense of Hashem in the Matter of the Holocaust.) II. The Slabodka Holocaust Theology I would like to explore here the approach of a Holocaust victim, Rav Avraham Grodzinski, the mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva who perished in 1944. I will be blending in another important view of Rav Grodzinski, along with his son-in-law Rav Shlomo Wolbe's presentation of Rav Grodzinski's approach in Rav Wolbe's (anonymously published) book of outreach speeches given in the wake of the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars (originally published as Bein Sheshes Le-Asor, later republished as Olam Ha-Yedidus). Rav Grodzinski's approach is most similar to that of Rav Miller, which is not surprising since the latter studied in the Slabodka yeshiva. However, I am not sure that Rav Miller developed it in the same way as Rav Grodzinski and he certainly did not present it in the same sensitive way as Rav Wolbe. [55]Rav Avraham Grodzinski succeeded Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel ("The Alter") as mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva, when the latter moved to Israel and established a branch of the yeshiva in Chevron. Rav Grodzinski (a brother-in-law of Rav Ya'akov Kamenetsky) stayed in Europe to the end, suffering a martyr's death in the Kovno Ghetto in 1944. He sent his writings to his students in Israel, who together with [56]his surviving sons published them in 1963 as Toras Avraham, a brilliant book of profound Mussar thought presented in the style of Talmudic thinking. [57]Rav Shlomo Wolbe first published Bein Sheshes Le-Asor anonymously in 1975, although it is clearly in his style and was posthumously republished by the foundation to publish his writings. The book consists mainly of his outreach lectures throughout Israel, spurred by the renewed interest in Israel awakened by the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War. The chapter on the Holocaust, however, was prepared for a class at the Bais Ya'akov of Jerusalem (commonly known as BJJ). I assume that Rav Wolbe included this chapter because he believes that this issue is important to those seeking to grow in faith. Rav Wolbe begins with a story emphasizing the importance of finding meaning in your suffering. It is obvious, he says, that we must help others by alleviating their suffering in any way possible. However, faith teaches us that there is meaning in suffering, a lesson to be learned. Rav Wolbe continues that even when God hides His face from us, there are no accidents. Therefore we must examine our lives to see what God wants from us. This is true not just for individuals but for nations as a whole. Throughout, Rav Wolbe quotes mainly biblical verses to prove his points, although I can think of many Talmudic passages that would do likewise. The believer is strengthened from the fact that destruction and suffering do not occur by happenstance but rather come guided by divine providence after ample warning. The traditional Jewish texts of the Bible, Talmud and Midrash warn us of the horrific consequences of sin. Rav Wolbe highlights in particular the language of the Gemara (Kesubos 111a), while sidestepping the specific Talmudic context, of "If not, I (God) will abandon your flesh like the gazelles and like the hinds of the field." Due to sin, Jewish flesh will be hunted like animals. Nobody, Rav Wolbe continues, is allowed to decide for what reason the Holocaust happened to us unless he personally suffered himself. Only a victim can conduct this examination of the generation. As we will later see, Rav Grodzinski did not necessarily agree with this. Perhaps Rav Wolbe set this condition for rhetorical purposes. Regardless, with that introduction, Rav Wolbe then invokes Rav Grodzinski's Holocaust theology. III. Suffering and Sins The introduction to Toras Avraham (1978 second edition, p. 17) describes how Rav Grodzinski discussed at length with his students in the Kovno Ghetto the spiritual causes of the Holocaust. He listed twelve primary sins, or areas where we were lacking, and exhorted them to strengthen the Jewish people in these areas if they survived the war. Rav Grodzinski wrote all these talks down but the writings were lost in the war. [58]Rav Mordechai Zuckerman survived and recorded the twelve lackings from memory. They are: 1) Faith 2) Shabbos observance 3) Family purity 4) Kosher food 5) Charging interest 6) Torah education of children 7) Wasting time that could be used for Torah study 8) Loving your fellow Jew 9) Lovingkindness (chesed) 10) Making do with less (histapkus) 11) Trust in God 12) The land of Israel (I don't know what this means in this context). I do not know if Rav Grodzinski applied Talmudic statements to his contemporary events, such as "seven punishments come to the world due to seven sins" (Avos 5:8), or if he looked at specific types of suffering and found the "measure for measure" in them, or a combination of both methods or something else. Because his writings were lost, we lack insight into his specific methodology. Regardless, I appreciate his general approach, as described below, and recognize that he used it to reach specific conclusions, which I find worthy as areas to strengthen ourselves. Rav Wolbe adds to the above list the general secularization of the Jewish people that began with Emancipation and continued with the Jewish Enlightenment. This was accompanied by widespread abandonment of Jewish faith and practice. Historically, he claims, every period of "enlightenment" has ended with Jewish tragedy. The Holocaust continues that historical cycle. I believe that Rav Grodzinski's Holocaust theology is intimately connected with his theology of suffering. In a series of lectures in late 1936 and early 1937, Rav Grodzinski explored the unique value of suffering to the religious personality. It might be worthwhile noting that since childhood, Rav Grodzinski suffered great physical pain that he overcame through sheer force of personality. Rav Grodzinski begins by pointing out what we lost as a nation and as individuals by the cessation of prophecy (roughly) after the destruction of the First Temple. The prophets informed us of our sins, directed us to the proper behavior, guided us to spiritual recovery. When prophecy ceased, we lost that guidance but were not left without any religious compass. Suffering shows us where we must focus. God punishes us measure for measure. Therefore, we can look at our suffering, our punishment, as a guide for where we need to improve our behavior. To some degree, suffering is more effective than prophecy. "The removal of Achashverosh's ring (for the sealing of Haman's decree) was more effective than the forty-eight prophets and the seven prophetesses who prophesied on behalf of the Jewish people. They all were unable to bring the Jewish people to repentance, but the removal of Achashverosh's ring brought them to repentance" (Megillah 14a). Additionally, suffering empowers you to find your own path to redemption, without the need for a third party, a prophet. Suffering not only directs you to improve but encourages you, offers you the incentive of freedom from suffering. Rav Grodzinski adds (p. 54) that suffering guides not only the sinners but others, as well. When we see someone suffering and understand the sin that caused it, we learn a very persuasive lesson about what behavior we should avoid. This is true also about the educational value of nations making flawed decisions that seal their fate. The suffering of nations teaches us what national mistakes to avoid (cf. Zephaniah 3:6-7). In Rav Grodzinski's view, a wise and learned person, steeped in Talmud and Midrash, can examine the suffering of the Holocaust to identify its underlying spiritual causes and learn from them. After conducting a careful examination, Rav Grodzinski reached his conclusions (unfortunately, his thought process was recorded in writing but lost) and beseeched his students to work to fix these spiritual problems. IV. Common Objections 1) Rav Wolbe concludes with a common question: Why did righteous people suffer in the Holocaust? He quotes Rav Grodzinski as explaining that the more righteous someone is, the harsher he is judged. R. Akiva suffered from Roman torture and murder because, we are told, "this intention arose before" God (Menachos 29b). What is that intention? Rashi (Gen. 1:1) says, "At first God intended to create the world under the attribute of strict justice, but He realized that the world could not thus endure and therefore gave priority to mercy combined with justice." R. Akiva and the other righteous individuals are judged with the initial intent, pure justice. Even without Rav Wolbe's interpretation of this passage, we see elsewhere that the righteous are judged by a hairbreadth (Yevamos 121b), meaning that what for others constitutes a minor infraction for someone righteous is a big sin. Additionally, once God sends a punishment to a group (city, country, nation), that punishment applies to everyone whether righteous or wicked (Bava Kamma 60a). That is part of being a people -- our fates are connected. In fact, the Gemara (Shabbos 55a) says that when God punishes the Jewish people, He starts with the most righteous. 2) Were the people killed in the Holocaust guilty? - Even though no one can claim to be free from guilt, it is hard to imagine that anyone committed a sin so heinous as to deserve the horrors of the Holocaust. However, a sin committed by many is worse than a sin committed by an individual. Additionally, God is patient and allows time -- generations -- for the Jewish people to return before punishing us. When the punishment arrives, it is not just for that generation but for the previous generations as well (Ex. 20:5; Or Ha-Chaim, ad loc.). The generation of the Holocaust lived at the end of God's long wait for a return that never arrived. We do not stand in judgement of those who died or suffered in the Holocaust, nor do we say that they are more deserving than people before or after them. According to this understanding, they were individuals who lived at a time in history when the Jewish people was punished for its collective sins over many generations, for its long drift away from traditional Jewish observance. 3) Were the Nazis right to kill Jews? - This question is natural but odd. Natural because it emerges from the overall approach but odd because it has been discussed for centuries. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Teshuvah 6:5) asks why Pharaoh and the Egyptians were punished for enslaving the Jews when it was part of God's plan as told to Avraham (Gen. 15:13). Rambam answers that someone was destined to enslave the Jews but the Egyptians were guilty for being the ones to do it and therefore suffered ten plagues and drowning at the sea (see also Ramban, Gen. 15:14; I discuss it [59]here). May the Nazis suffer a hundred times ten plagues for their part in the Holocaust. None of this detracts from God's role in punishing the Jewish people through the guilty Egyptian hands. 4) What value is there in looking for other people's sins? - As discussed above, Rav Grodzinski sees value in learning what to fix. If we do not learn the spiritual lessons of history, we are condemned to repeat them. Additionally, Ramban (Sha'ar Ha-Gemul in Kisvei Ha-Ramban, vol. 2 p. 281; I discuss it [60]here) offers four reasons to engage in theodicy, even if ultimately you cannot fully understand God's ways. First, we benefit from gaining a better understanding of God's ways. More wisdom is good. Metaphysical knowledge, understanding God's actions, is always positive. Second, studying the ways in which God rewards and punishes people strengthens our belief. Our continuous exploration of God's ways reinforces within us His existence and His providence. Our greater understanding affords us confidence that explanations exist to even what we do not understand. Additionally, concludes Ramban, the obligations to fear and love God include a requirement to accept His judgment, to explain and justify God's decisions. This is a mitzvah of tziduk ha-din. 4) Is it sacrilegious to try to understand God's justice? - No, it is a mitzvah, as per the previous point. It also is not insulting to speak of punishment due to sins. When the Shakh writes about the Chmelnitzki massacres, he refers to what happened to us "due to our sins." When the Ra'avan writes about the First Crusade ([61]Kuntres Gezeiras Tatn"u), he specifically invokes the tokhecha, saying that they experienced all of the biblical curses. This is a strain of, if not the dominant strain in, traditional Judaism. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Ta'aniyos 1:3) calls it cruelty to fail to look for the sins that led to divine punishment. 5) Can anyone know God's reasons absent prophecy? - Rav Yitzchak Hutner ("Holocaust" -- A Study of the Term, and the Epoch it is Meant to Describe" in [62]Jewish Observer, October 1977, p. 9) writes: "One would have to be a navi or Tanna (a prophet or Talmudic sage) to claim knowledge of the specific reasons for what befell us; anyone on a lesser plane claiming to do so tramples in vain upon the bodies of the kedoshim who died Al Kiddush Hashem [as holy martyrs] and misuses the power to interpret and understand Jewish history." On the other hand, this same Rav Hutner gave an approbation to Rav Wolbe's book quoted above. Furthermore, it seems that Rav Grodzinski, himself a holy martyr, felt his method of analyzing suffering serves the function of prophecy in today's age. 6) Why does this usually ring so hollow? - When the Holocaust is discussed without sensitivity and empathy, the proposed explanations sound shallow and offensive. In my opinion, that is why Rav Wolbe began with a long introduction and invoked the conclusions of a Holocaust victim, Rav Grodzinski. Furthermore, many of the people offering explanations today either are, or sound like or are portrayed by the media as being, self-righteous fools. It is hard to take seriously someone whose analysis is shallow and only validates his regular message. If your answer to everything is female immodesty, you lack credibility to offer a thoughtful and nuanced answer. Rav Grodzinski does not face this challenge but some people may unfairly associate him with others who suffer that problem. There may be other reasons that this approach often rings hollow but these should suffice for our purposes. Personally, I benefited from this tokhecha approach which I intuited as a non-religious teenager. I am not certain which sins caused the Holocaust but I am open to honest, sensitive speculation as a way of learning from history, which I believe is that in which Rav Grodzinski and Rav Wolbe engaged. If this approach had been deemed theologically unacceptable, despite its impeccable pedigree, I don't know if I would be religious today. In my opinion, it is a shame to remove this approach from our theological toolbox due to politics and rhetoric from decades ago. ... 3 comments 1. Kovner Sep 8, 20 at 6:44 am You missed out on one more important approach. Read the classic introduction to Zichron Kodosh written by the author of Nesivos Sholom - RSN Barzovsky zt"l. The sefer was published once, and never reprinted. Also, the Toras Avrohom was published by a son - not sons - of RAG. Only one son did not perish. ... 3. Kovner Sep 9, 20 at 7:05 pm I'm not skilled to do so accurately and faithfully. Never the less, I'll venture to say that the central point is that it's all part of Hashem's Grand Plan of human history, and is beyond our comprehension. And therefore the most appropriate response is "Vayidom Aharon"... ... Copyright 2020 All rights reserved References 51. https://merrimackvalleyhavurah.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/the-face-of-god-thoughts-on-the-holocaust/ 52. http://www.mysatmar.com/docs/shite_hakdoshe/ 53. https://torasavigdor.org/ 54. https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Madness-Avigdor-Millers-Holocaust/dp/B00EF68V9C 55. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Grodzinski 56. https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/54188/harav-yitzchok-grodzinsky-recalls-the-last-moments-of-hagon-rav-elchonon-wasserman-hyd-before-his-murder.html 57. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Wolbe 58. https://www.jdn.co.il/breakingnews/1230669/ 59. https://www.torahmusings.com/2016/05/were-the-egyptians-right/ 60. https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/10/why-theodicy/ 61. https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34838&st=&pgnum=2&hilite= 62. https://agudah.org/the-jewish-observer-vol-12-no-8-october-1977chesvan-5738/ From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Sat Sep 12 10:18:12 2020 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 17:18:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Has anyone seen litereature about the following Issues when Davening BiYehidut (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. (2) If one says the piyut of the Avoda after his private Musaf shmoneh Esrei, can he fall korim, what about Aleinu Shanah Tovah, Beri'ah u-metukah! Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Sep 13 20:36:29 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2020 23:36:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 Message-ID: . asked several questions about Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4, who wrote: > And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the > Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. Spoiler alert: I have several problems with this Aruch Hashulchan, and I suspect that (as R' Wolberg suspects), the AhS had ulterior reasons for writing this (such as the inroads that Reform was making via their translations) and could not have really meant it l'halacha. In any case, there are other poskim who do allow translations. I will begin by giving my own translation of this section of AhS, so that if anyone disagrees with my understanding of what he said, they can bring it to my attention. I will break it into several numbered pieces for easier reference. >>> 1) Know that this [halacha] that Krias Shema and Tefilla may be said in any language - this is certainly when one translates really the entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh into the other language. For otherwise, it would not constitute Shema and Tefilla. 2) According to that, this law does not apply except in the time of the Mishna and Gemara, for they knew our language well, and they were able to translate it. 3) But now, it is well-known that we have a number of uncertainties in explaining the words, and the commentators are divided about it. For example, how do we translate "totafos"? Similarly, the pasuk "Shema Yisrael" has various explanations even of its simple meaning. Likewise in the section about tzitzis, some explain it [the word "tzitzis"] in the sense of "looking" [from the root tzadi yud tzadi], and some explain it as "going" [from yud tzadi aleph]. Same for the word "p'sil" and many [other words] like it. 4) Behold, the essential Name of Havay' - we don't know how to translate it correctly! There are those who translate it as Nitzchi [Eternal], and some translate it as Kol-Yachol [Almighty], and there is no translation at all for "Was and Is and Will Be", which is the real Name Havay', so they equate the translation of the Name Havay' with the Name Elokim. 5) [Here he says something about two very different ways of translating "V'chara af", but I don't understand what he is saying.] 6) And therefore, nowadays it is forbidden to recite Krias Shema or Tefilla or any brachos except in Lashon Hakodesh, and so have the Geonei Olam paskened for about eighty years now, and this is the bottom-line halacha. >>> The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it? He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists? According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty AND Was/Is/WillBe? In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3: 1) It seems in my humble opinion that there is an established halacha by which one can get out of any questionable bracha acharona. For example, one is unsure if he said a bracha acharona or not. Or if he *needs* to make a bracha acharona or not. There is a way to extricate himself from this safek. 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167. 3) If so, one can say "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, boray nefashos etc. ..." If he was obligated in this bracha, then he is yotzay with this. And if he didn't need this bracha, then he has *not* uttered the Name of Heaven in vain, because there is no mention of the Name at all. Look, you can say "Rachamana" a hundred times! 4) Or similar things with other brachos. You should think in your heart that if you need the bracha then it is [being said] for the sake of a bracha; and if not, then it's just talking. 5) I have done this myself several times when drinking hot drinks. The most obvious thing from this section is that the Aruch Hashulchan personally believes that a bracha CAN be said in Aramaic. You might respond that he makes an exception for Aramaic, which is arguably a Lashon Hakodesh. But look again at the AhS's requirements for an adequate translation of Hashem's Name - which is an absolute necessity when saying a bracha - and I don't think "Rachamana" conveys any sense of "Was and Is and Will Be". Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude someone from a partial translation. For example, one could translate most of the words, and leave the difficult words untranslated, which is almost exactly how ArtScroll handles the cited case of "totafos": "Bind them as a sign upon your arm and let them be tefillin between your eyes." If I'm understanding Siman 62 correctly, the AhS wants translation to be all-or-nothing, and since all is not possible, he feels justified in banning all translations. But in Siman 202, a partial translation is exactly what he is doing, by translating the initial words of the bracha, and then continuing with the regular Hebrew text. By the way, it seems that Rav Moshe Feinstein agrees that a translation must be all-or-nothing. See Igros Moshe OC 4:40:27, which is two paragraphs. In the first paragraph, he rejects the AhS's suggestion of using Brich Rachamana to get out of problems, precisely because you can't mix languages in that manner. (It's not at all clear to me why we're not allowed to mix languages, but it is very clear that Rav Moshe rejects it.) In the second paragraph he explains that even if one would say the entire bracha in Aramaic, that too would not resolve a safek bracha problem, because whereas the AhS had no compunctions against saying Rachamana a hundred times, *we* are noheg to avoid saying the Name in vain even when translated. As an aside, there are several teshuvos in which Rav Moshe explains his views on how to translate Hashem's Name for brachos in other languages. See for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:272, where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana, "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ... And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe, whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include concepts like "Was and Is and Will Be". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Sep 14 05:43:25 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:43:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. What is the minimum amount of shofar blowing that one is required to hear? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. In three different places the Torah commands us to blow shofar in the month of Tishrei: Twice in relation to Rosh Hashanah, and once in reference to Yom Kippur (Yovel ? Jubilee). The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 34a) connects the three verses and derives that each time the shofar is blown, it must be blown three times. The Gemara also proves that every blowing of the shofar actually consists of three parts: A Tekiah (a long blow), followed by a Teruah (a broken blow), followed by a Tekiah. This makes for a total of nine blows. The mitzvah is to blow the shofar nine times following this pattern. Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah However, because the Gemara records a disagreement as to the sound of the Teruah, we blow three variations. This amounts to 30 blows. 3X ? Tekiah ? Shevarim Teruah ? Tekiah=(12) 3X ? Tekiah ? Shevarim? Tekiah=(9) 3X ? Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah=(9) This is the minimum amount of shofar blows that one should hear to fulfill their obligation. If even this is too much, at the very least one should make sure to hear at least ten blasts. (See Mishnah Berurah 586:22 & 600:7). Tekiah ? Shevarim Teruah ? Tekiah=(4) Tekiah ? Shevarim ? Tekiah=(3) Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah=(3) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 18:29:14 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 21:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur Message-ID: . R' Aryeh Frimer asked: > Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when > Davening BiYehidut > (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but > perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la > Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head: Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice. Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 06:38:38 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:38:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Q. Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 565:5) writes that the "Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim" > (thirteen attributes of mercy, Shemos 34:6-7) may not be recited unless there is a > minyan. When these pesukim are recited in the context of prayer, they have the > elevated status of a "davar she'bikedusha," like Kaddish or Kedusha, that may only > be said in the presence of a minyan. I actually traced this back to its source - a new obsession of mine. It's a Tur in 565 (Hil. Ta'anis). "Rav Nosson writes there's no Minhag for an individual to say the 13 attributes." (Excuse the stilted word-for-word translation). The Tur then seems to make it clear that he's quoting this to ensure people don't find this Rav Nosson and pasken like it: "I don't know what the problem is since it's like saying Psukim, since the Chachamim only say (not to say w/o a Minyan) a Dovor Shebikdusha like Kaddish, Kedusha and Borchu" (Who is this Rav Nosson? The only Rishon I could find by this name was the Oruch.) The Darkei Moshe injects (on Rav Nosson's statement) saying "our Minhag is (for individuals) to say it, but not during the Shmoneh Esre. The Mahr"iv quoting the O"Z says individuals should not say Selichos." (I.e. they used to say Selichos on Ta'anis during Chazoras haShatz. Actually, we Yekkes still do.) See it online at https://www.sefaria.org.il/Tur%2C_Orach_Chaim.565.1?with=Darchei%20Moshe - for those who can see the Hebrew: , ???? ???? ?????:??:? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?"? ???? [?] ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???: [?] ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????"? ??? ?"? ???? ????? ???? ?????? So the Tur and the Darkei Moshe both agree that an individual can say the "Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim". The dissenting opinion says to skip Selichos altogether. >From there it's all downhill. The common denominator being that all Nosie Keilim seem to pasken like Rav Nosson and try to find workarounds. I find this fascinating. I wonder if the Tur now regrets ever mentioning this opinion. :-) Note that this is all mentioned in Hil. Ta'anis. In 581 where they discuss Selichot during Elul, they ignore this topic completely. KVT - Danny From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Sep 16 10:42:32 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:42:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] practical and detailed shir for Baalei tokaya and makri Message-ID: <089901d68c50$c22d7680$46886380$@touchlogic.com> Very good. Starts basic, but gets better.. >From Rabbi Mordechai Scheiner, rosh Kollel Ohr Yosef - toronto https://zoom.us/rec/share/xyvl_GE2lRo5GmE02A0XVqL4TEp3Kq4RqYfPZ4zAbezsR4D1c7G8LaIToB8dxYbe.0vgzJDhv9dDlViCP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 13:40:15 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:40:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <2110840790.2504917.1600178620157@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20200914185208.GC25700@aishdas.org> <2110840790.2504917.1600178620157@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20200917204015.GA749@aishdas.org> Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT: > Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim > we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is > problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out sifrei > Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos given to > 12 year olds, etc... > This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked how > we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to celebrate a > siyum that itself is iffy. > But when I wrote that, few of us really thought that Israel would be > closing down for the chagim, and that ever minute of shul in nearly all > of chu"l is increasing medical risk. So now we're talking about invoking > heteirim to party at the peril of the medically fragile in the community. > I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the > bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this year's > leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a Simchas > Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can anyone argue > for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that psychological need for > the majority of people? On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 2:03pm GMT, R Harry Maryles replied on Areivim: > It's true that most Shuls had a pretty big gap in their weekly Kriyas > HaTorah and that many Parshios were missed. But some Shuls hae made them > up. In a few cases no Parshios were missed. For example in my son's > neighborhood of Ramat bet Shemesh which is over 90% observant, my son > did KhT every Shabbos from his balcony with a Minyan made of of all of > his neighbors within earshot. (Don't know how he arrived at calling this > Teffilah B'Tzibur, but that was his Beshas Ha'dechak Psak.) > IIUC, Doing Hakafos on ST is a Minahg of the Tzibur, not the Yachid. > It is based on what the Klal as a whole does. The celebration of > completing yearly cycle with Hakafos is therefore appropriate this year > just like every year. But only along the lines I suggested because of > the pandemic. There are cases where every parashah was leined beause the members of the minyan can't disband anyway -- like in a nursing home or on an army base. But I fear you presented a false dichotomy. Yes, leining and therefore the siyum on leining we celebrate on ST are about the tzibur. But I wouldn't assume that means the global tzibur. After all, there was even a time when annual leining wasn't a universal norm. I had presented a third option, because I had assumed a neighorhood tzibbur. With all the modern complications now that most communities have shenei batei din ba'ir, as we put it WRT the tzibbur accepting Shabbos. But whether your town, your shul, or something else, that I didn't have a position on. So as I saw it, if no minyan in town leined the whole seifer Torah betzibbur, how is that community making a siyum? Shouldn't the shul making the party include at least person completing the text being mesayeim? In any case, there are at least those three possibilities, and we only agree on ruling out the first one, the yachid. But my point on Areivim, just like the point I made here to begin with, was more about most of the minhagim for celebrating Simchas Torah are on the defensive. We lein at night. (At least most of us do.) We take out more sifrei Torah than we read from. We give way too many people aliyos. We are relying on heteirim on a slew of dinim about kavod ST and qeri'as haTorah. We need a certain level of justification for it. We don't have to just say that ST celebrates someone else's completion of the Torah -- we need to be able to argue that's true strongly enough to justify those heteirim. Or, that we need ST for our mental health strongly enough to qualify as justification. Which is an approach I am more sympathetic to than saying I am dancing in my shul with a seifer Torah to celebrate the men of Nachal Yehudah (eg) and in the senior living facilities a couple of miles outside our eiruv at Daughter of Miryam completing a cycle of leining. Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries http://www.aishdas.org/asp are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 18 05:05:52 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:05:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Is one permitted to fast on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. One is not permitted to fast on Rosh Hashanah because Rosh Hashanah is a Yom Tov. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (OC 597:1) rules that one must eat, drink and rejoice on Rosh Hashanah. Nonetheless, unlike other Yomim Tovim, one should not overindulge, lest the solemn nature of the day will be obscured. However, there were Rishonim who held that it is permissible to fast during the daytime because Rosh Hashanah is a day of teshuva. Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l said that his great-grandfather, the Beis HaLevi, would fast both days. In fact, there were those who would fast even on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah because they considered the importance of teshuva on this day to be on the level of pikuach nefesh (life threatening), which overrides the requirement to eat a Shabbos seuda. Although in practice we follow the Shulchan Aruch and do not fast on Rosh Hashanah, the Mishnah Berurah (584:5) makes a distinction between Rosh Hashanah which falls on Shabbos, and Rosh Hashanah which falls on a weekday, as follows: When Rosh Hashanah falls on a weekday, we are permitted to extend the davening into the afternoon, while if Rosh Hashanah is on Shabbos, we are required to finish davening before chatzos (halachic midday) so as not to fast past the morning. As such, if one expects their shul to finish davening on Shabbos after chatzos, it is best to drink a tea or coffee in the morning before going to shul, to avoid fasting inappropriately on Shabbos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 18 05:17:03 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:17:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Laws & Customs: Month of Tishrei during the Corona period Message-ID: For those in quarantine, davening by themselves or in outside Minyanim Please see https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/groupsioattachments/14569/76906693/102/0?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJECNKOVMCCU3ATNQ&Expires=1600431735&Signature=d1788QfnWQyWHF1xjnl7Zn59EJg%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3D%22Tishrei+During+Corona.pdf%22 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Mon Sep 21 05:50:14 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 13:50:14 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? Message-ID: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT: > Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim > we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is > problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out > sifrei Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos > given to > 12 year olds, etc... BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So while it might be that the Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah out). Note that that also means that the siyum for the year, even in a normal year, is not complete (or about to be completed) when the sifrei Torah are taken out at night, as the first hakafos take place (at latest) on the night of Simchat Torah, and yet the finishing of the yearly reading only occurs the next day. Note the reason why I say at latest is because many Sephardim (although not all) have the custom of doing seven sets of seven hakafot which mean they do hakafot on Shmini Atzeret as well (three sets on Shmini Atzeret, to correspond with the three services, three sets on Simchat Torah, to correspond with the three services, and one after Simchat Torah). > This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked > how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to > celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy. There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah, something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah. Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations and to call to others to make a feast. *And further it is the custom* in our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every place according to its custom. *And further we are accustomed* to circle with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with the lulav *and all is because of joy* *Further we are accustomed* to call all the lads to the sefer Torah, ... and in every place according to their custom. *Further we are accustomed* to finish the Torah even with a child oleh..." That is, while you appear to be saying that *because* we make a siyum on the Torah *therefore* we do all these other halachically iffy customs, even the Rema does not say this. To the extent he gives a reason, it is "because of joy", and all the customs are as a result of *that* category. Which makes sense, because making a siyum justifies a seudah being considered a seudas mitzvah (and may justify the name of Simchas Torah, instead of second day Shmini Atzeret), and there are references in the gemara that seem to justify the making of a feast for a siyum, although the derivation is not really that straightforward, nowhere does it allow any of the other behaviour that might be Halachically iffy. On the other hand, simcha is a mitzvah d'orisa on yom tov, and indeed according to Sukkah 48a " It was taught in a braita: [Devarim 16:16] "and it will be completely joyous" this is to include the night of the last day of Yom Tov [lelei yom tov acharon]" Now of course, that is referring in the Torah to Shmini Artzeret, and it is interesting that in chutz l'aretz, we seem to have taken the especially joyous obligation of that d'orisa mitzvah, and attached it to what is the night of yom tov achron for us, which in fact is only minhag avosaynu b'yadanu. But be that as it may, it seems to me that, as the Rema says, the justification for all of these minhagim is simchas yom tov, and particularly the extra simcha of the final days of yom tov, and that they are independent of one another, so that the aspects related to making a siyum on the Torah are independent of taking the sifrei Torah out, and of doing the hakafos, and of singing and dancing. And if anything, the minhag of having a siyum on completing a full yearly reading of the Torah could perhaps be seen as being caused by the obligation to create extra joy on Shmini Atzeret/Simchas Torah, and not the other way around. We have arranged our schedules so that we have the joy of completely the Torah on this day, as Torah learning is in and of itself a form of joy (see eg the introduction to the Eglei Tal), so we arrange them to coincide. > I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the > bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this > year's leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a > Simchas Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can > anyone argue for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that > psychological need for the majority of people? But again, this assumes that all the minhagim on Simchas Torah are a direct result of the siyum, which I do not believe is the case. It is important to have Simchas Yom Tov, and to do what we can to maximise simchas Yom Tov, and if the siyum part is not possible, but the other parts are, then the other parts should be done. <> And the classic justification for these heterim is that the aseh of simcha is docheh, as per the Rema. However, because we are taking about simcha that is required by the Torah, it is linked to and part and parcel with simcha with the Torah - without the Torah there would be no obligation of such simcha, so simcha that is antithetical to the Torah, ie does not encompass kavod haTorah, is not justified. Which is why I am not even convinced that it is a tzibbur versus yachid thing. Would there be a problem if a Rav, who happened to live above the shul, took out the sefrei Torah and did hakafos with them with his family around an empty shul, because he was restricted by Covid requirements to his bubble, which did not contain a minyan? I'm not sure there would. There are potential issues with leining, and even more so with making birchas haTorah on such layning, but do we consider hakafos as a dvar shebekedusha that absolutely has to have a minyan? It is post gemara, so it is not so clear it can be a dvar shebekedusha, which might need to have been instituted by the Anshei Knesset Hagadola or at least not to be post Ravina and Rav Ashi (that might also turn on whether you follow the Aruch haShulchan and the Rokach, who hold that kaddish was instituted by the Anshei Knesset HaGadola, and that is what justifies its status as a dvar shebekedusha, or whether you follow the Shibbolei Ha-Leket and the teshuvas HaGeonim which seem to suggest that the whole institution of kaddish within prayer was instituted by the Geonim (and if so, whether a takana of the Geonim is and remains binding or it does not)). <> But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as something of an obligation of the tzibbur (the tzibbur would seem to be needed in order to make sure that we are making the widow happy). So to the extent that it is dependent upon simcha, then that obligation remains, even if the minhagim of the tzibbur, ie the way the tzibbur traditionally performs such simcha, might not be possible at the present time, and hence is not an obligation. -Micha Gmar Tov Chana From doniels at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 03:16:13 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:16:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur Message-ID: . R' Aryeh Frimer asked: > Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when > Davening BiYehidut > (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but > perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la > Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. R' Akiva Miller answered: > No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head: > Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it > certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice. > Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is > mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there. In a nutshell, you can see it here on Sefaria: https://tinyurl.com/y2qgtuyx It's a Mishna in Nedirim 3:1, discussed in Talmud 23a, codified in Yoreh De'a 211 to which the Ba'er Heitev decides that as long as one said it loud enough to be heard to one's own ears, it's valid. None of the commentators along the way mention publicity. The only issue they have is "Devorim She'B'Leiv" if it's whispered or thought. Along the way I learnt: You can say it ("just kidding about the Neder stuff") any time. Those who hold you don't have to say it right before making the Neder, don't give it an expiration date - IOW once a lifetime should be sufficient. Bottom line: If it works, you can chant the "futuristic" Kol Nidrei to yourself in an undertone. CLOR. Gmar Chasima Tova - Danny, not a Rabbi by any stretch of imagination. From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Sep 17 08:56:27 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:56:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Consumer Daf HaKashrus - Spices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I normally do not send out messages with attachments, but I could not locate this online. [See for attached PDF. -micha] From the pdf file > This article is an in-depth look at a specific category of vegetables: > spices. Spices refer to aromatic vegetable products used to season or > flavor foods. Less than 2% of food consumed in the United States are > spices, but what a difference that 2% makes! Without spices, all food > would be bland and unappetizing. > As mentioned, there are many spices exported by Israel, which create a > whole host of potential kashrus issues. All uncertified Israeli spices > present serious kashrus challenges in the form of tevel and shemitah. A > Mashgiach visiting a spice plant must be on the lookout for this. Because > of the aromatic and fragrant nature of spices, these spices will not > be batel in a mixture, as they are avida l'taama, added to mixtures > for taste, and anything which is added to a mixture for taste does not > become batel. This halachah is paskened by Rema in Yoreh Deah 98:8, > from the Gemara (Beitza 38b, Chulin 6a). See the attachment for much more. From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Sep 22 05:50:20 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:50:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Cheerios and Pas Yisroel Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Can one eat Cheerios during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva (ten days from Rosh Hashana to Yom Kippur) or Shabbos and Yom Tov for those who only eat Pas Yisroel on those days? What about other breakfast cereals? Must they be Pas Yisroel? A. There are differing opinions as to whether Cheerios is considered pas. The OU poskim do not consider it pas, because of the size of the individual pieces and the manner in which it is made. Likewise, wheat flake cereals are not considered ?bread-like? and therefore do not need to be pas Yisroel. Corn and Rice Cereals are, by definition, not bread items. See our Pas Yisroel List ? 5781 at OUKosher.org for OU certified Pas Yisroel brands and products. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 14:09:36 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200922210936.GD19252@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 11:36:29PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was > supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated > prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in > the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it? The SA often just echoes Chazal when the case is considered theoretical. So, if he didn't see people really trying to say Shema in la'az, the Mechaber wouldn't deal with the practical problems of trying to do so and just note that hypothetically, Chazal said it was mutar. > He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators > lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are > incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text > holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to > adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists? Or maybe just the right shade for each instance. If you get too nitpicky, you'll note that two different speakers of the same language have different memories and associations with many of their different words, and don't have bidiyuq the same things in mind when using them. Exact precision is a rabbit's hole to fall down. The question is defining "exact enough". Maybe exact enough to relay one out of multiple peshatim? WRT semitic languages, there are going to be much closer matches. So, davening in Aramaic seems much more doable than davening in a Romantic or Germanic language. > According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the > Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word > "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those > languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's > satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty > AND Was/Is/WillBe? Or maybe Moshe translated to a phrase. Or maybe, because Moshe knew which connotation of the sheim was primary in each context, he was able to pick the right translation for each. > In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my > translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3: ... > 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana, > Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe > (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written > in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167. But he pointedly does NOT say that it's a good idea even if it's not a a safeiq. So it would seem translations are only good enough when there is no better way to deal with the situation. You're comparing what he says here lekhat-chilah with his solution for a bedi'eved. BTW, I think berikh Rachmana is about fulfilling the purpose of the berachah without trying to fulfill Chazal's coinage. Like if we said you would be be meqabel ol Malkhus Shamayim by saying Shema in English, but not yotzei the actual mitzvah of Q"Sh. Because there is no "atah", and "of this bread" isn't "Who Brings bread out of the earth". It's not even a close paraphrase, never mind translation. It's not even an exactness of translation issue. Like, what if a native Hebrew speaker followed AhS OC 202 by saying "Barukh haRachaman Adon Melekh haOlam vehalachmaniah hazot". He would also avoid the risk of berakhaha levatalah and also that of the geneivah-like behavior of eating without a berakhah. > Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the > entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did > he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude > someone from a partial translation.... Why? Maybe someone would think "If I get a perfect enough translation just until 'al levavekha' or just the first pereq, at least he would be yotzei deOraisa." And SE is a different kind of problem than Shema, since its core is baqashos, not miqra. > for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:[1]72, > where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have > assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana, > "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and > established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common > among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ... > And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe, > whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include > concepts like "Was and Is and Will Be". BUT... only for some of the dinim of Sheimos. Not translations of tefillos. As you started your discussion of RMF -- he agrees with the AhS that such translations don't exist. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, http://www.aishdas.org/asp others come to love him very naturally, and Author: Widen Your Tent he does not need even a speck of flattery. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 14:23:23 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:23:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:50:14PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot > HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So while it might be that the > Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to > come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein > and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think > it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah > out).... I was taught the same line of reasoning besheim haGra. (I emailed RSMandel to double-check if it was from him, and did he have the mar'eh maqom. Got impatient holding off this reply for an answer.) >> This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked >> how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to >> celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy. > There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah, > something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and > Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be > related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the > way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah. > Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman > 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs: > > "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and > make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are > accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations > and to call to others to make a feast. *And further it is the custom* in > our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the > sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every > place according to its custom. *And further we are accustomed* to circle > with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with > the lulav *and all is because of joy*..." The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah shel torah* venohagim...") And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah". And since the Rama told you the simchah in question is that of the siyum, I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum, and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a community that year. >> Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either >> way. > But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as > something of an obligation of the tzibbur... Yes, but we don't take the sifrei Torah out at night for any other yom tov. It's not "just" simchas YT. So the question is whether I can invoke sharing in *his* simchah over finishing the Torah to participate. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search http://www.aishdas.org/asp of a spiritual experience. You are a Author: Widen Your Tent spiritual being immersed in a human - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Sep 22 16:57:21 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:57:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] forms of teshuvah Message-ID: From R' Gil Student: Medieval Ashkenazic authorities prescribed a variety of strong acts of self-induced suffering as part of the teshuvah process, including long-term fasting, lashes, exile and more. Rabbeinu Peretz (Gloss to Semak, no. 53) lists four kinds of teshuvah: 1) teshuvas charatah, in which you regret the sin; 2) teshuvas ha-geder, in which you set additional boundaries for yourself to avoid sinning in the future; 3) teshuvas ha-kasuv, in which you undergo the punishment listed in the Torah for your sin; 4) teshuvas ha-mishkal, in which you inflict yourself with pain corresponding to the amount of pleasure you enjoyed with your sin. Of these four, the first is what we consider standard teshuvah and the second is going above and beyond. The third and fourth are not - and should not be - practiced today. The Vilna Gaon's brother (Ma'alos Ha-Torah, introduction) makes clear that we cannot undergo these harsh forms of teshuvah in our time (his time, even more so in our time) and emerge physically and religiously healthy. Instead, he recommends intense Torah study. Me- what is the nature of the paradigm change claimed by the Ma'alos Ha-Torah? Gct 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 Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Tue Sep 22 15:25:17 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:25:17 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: <> Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is: ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the Torah" That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is because of the custom of making of completing the Torah. So maybe you should argue that *this* year Simchas Torah should not be called Simchas Torah, but Shmini Atzeres sheni! He does not say, as you have said "the simcha is that of completing the Torah*. << And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah".>> Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag. Most of the prohibitions however (such as not taking the sifrei Torah out for no reason, reading over and over, calling up ketanim) are because of kavod haTorah, ie kavod haTorah is the counterweight reason *not* to do these minhagim. However similar to the idea of oseh docheh lo ta'aseh, the mitzvah of simcha is able push aside certain kevod haTorah restrictions in certain circumstances, but clearly not in ones that are in fact a disgrace to the Torah, but only ones that enhance the simcha of the Torah. There is no reason for a siyum to push aside prohibitions relating to kavod haTorah. <> But he didn't he told you that is why the day has that name, not that the simcha in question is the siyum. All the different minhagim, including, but not limited to, having the siyum, are because of simcha. << I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum, and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a community that year.>> Then he need not have listed them as "v'od nehagu" etc <> But the gemora learns the simcha for yom tov acharon shel chag out of a separate pasuk to the psukim that we learn it for Sukkos. Why would Shmini Atzeres need its only special pasuk with its own special limud, why does the Torah not combine it with the simcha learnt out for sukkos? The mishna understands that one is obligated in the same way just like the seven days of sukkos so why are they not combined in the Torah? The logical answer is because there is something somewhat different about the nature of this simcha (and in fact one might be tempted to darshen the ach, not as the gemora does to exclude the first night of sukkos, but to say that it is a day of simcha only, not simcha and sukkah and arba minim, but only simcha). The custom, and the Rema makes it very clear that it is a custom, of making the siyum is very late, given that we know that a three year cycle was in existence for many years, and yet the descriptions of what was going on on Simchas Torah well predate the universality of the one year cycle (descriptions amongst the Geonim, inter alia). The fundamental mitzvah on Shmini Atzeres/Simchas Torah is therefore ach sameach! The interesting question is why in chutz l'aretz, other than amongst those Sefardim who start the hakafot on Shmini Artzeres, we do *not* take the sifrei Torah out on Shmini Atzeres. However, to the extent that one is sitting in the sukkah on Shmini Artzeret, and it is still thereby linked to sukkos, then maybe it makes sense that in chutz l'aretz, the day that is ach sameach, with no link to what went before, is Simchas Torah, despite it only being yom tov sheini shel golios. <> But only if you assume the linkage that, against the explicit language of the Rema, the cause of all the other minhagim is the siyum, including where they are otherwise in violation of kevod haTorah, rather than that the special simcha due to the special pasuk is the cause of all the minhagim including the siyum. GCT! -Micha Regards Chana From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 03:12:16 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 06:12:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? Message-ID: . Several posters referenced the Rama, which R"n Chana Luntz translated as: > The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they > rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of > the Torah Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to our private learning of the parshios, such as those who learned the parsha each week by reading it themselves from a chumash while the shuls were closed? Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv, but by taking the time and effort to actually mouth every single word myself (rather than just listen to the kriah and let my mind dwell on this pasuk and that pasuk), I feel that my learning of Chumash this year was considerably better than in years past, and I'll have no problem celebrating that, to whatever extent our rav allows. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 23 05:51:56 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 12:51:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Medicine on Yom Kippur Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May a person who is ill, but is not in mortal danger (choleh she?ein bo sakana) consume unsweetened medicine on Yom Kippur? A. This is the subject of a dispute between the Acharonim. According to Shaagas Aryeh (75-76), one is not permitted to take medicine on Yom Kippur. Even though medicine is not a ?food?, and the prohibition to consume medicine is Rabbinic in nature ? which is normally waived for people who are ill, nonetheless, by swallowing the pill , the individual demonstrates that he or she considers it as food, and it is therefore forbidden on Yom Kippur. K?sav Sofer (OC 111) strongly disagrees and maintains that consuming medicine when ill does not demonstrate that it is a food item, and therefore medicine may be swallowed on Yom Kippur. Igros Moshe (OC 111:91) concurs with this ruling as well. If a person must drink water to swallow a pill, contemporary poskim recommend adding a bitter substance to water, such as a significant amount of lemon juice or vinegar, so that the water has a very unpleasant taste. This was the opinion of Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul, (Ohr L?Tziyon, IV 15:8), Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (Ashrei Ha?Ish III 23:230) and Rav Nissim Karelitz (Chut HaShani, Yom Kippur p. 145). If the pill is sweet, it is considered to be a food independently of its medicinal properties. In such instances, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach advised that the pill should be wrapped in a tissue and swallowed in that manner (Shemira Shabbos KeHilchasa 39:8; Halichos Shlomo, Yom HaKippurim 5:8). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 11:23:34 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 14:23:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200923182334.GA22665@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:25:17PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing >> the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah >> shel torah* venohagim...") > Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is: ... > Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah > because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the > Torah" > That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is > because of the custom of making of completing the Torah.... Because "shesimeichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh legamrah shel Torah". The simchah and making the mishteh are for the completion of the Torah. And thus the name of the holiday reflects that simchah. ... > Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha > on yom tov acharon shel chag. But the Rama doesn't say simchas YT, just "mishum simchah". OTOH, as we saw, the Rama opens by speaking of the simchah and mishteh of completing the Torah. So, if he just says "simchah" afterwards, why would I think it is anything but the "semeichin ... legamra shel Torah" already brought into the discussion? You're assuming the Rama changes topics without telling us. (Of course, I didn't think any of this out before my first post. I just read the sources, not thinking about other possibilities until it became a discussion. But I can't say that you convinced me yet that I brought too many unconscious assumptions to the table, that your read is comparably viable.) On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 06:12:16AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public > laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to > our private learning of the parshios... It refers to the completion that occured that morning, which was indeed leining. The AhS ad loc says the party is traditionally paid for with pledges by the Chasanim. Not, as I see done today, that the qiddush the next two Shabbosos are. > Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv... A siyum is a siyum. People make a siyum on a mesechtes gemara that they had no particular chiyuv to learn over learning something else. I just don't think we were mesaymim what the minhagim were established to celebrate. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. http://www.aishdas.org/asp If you want time, you must make it. Author: Widen Your Tent - Charles Buxton - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Wed Sep 23 15:37:44 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 23:37:44 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: > Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have > simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag. And RMB replied: <> I suppose the reason it seems to me obvious that mishum simcha, means the simcha of Yom Tov, is because: a) when the poskim say something is meshum simcha in the context of yom tov, they mean the mitzvah of simcha - for example: the Levush and the Bach (and numerous others, I believe) hold that the hakafos of the lulav during sukkos is mishum simcha (or at least the hakafos in the Beis HaMikdash, come directly out of the pasuk mandating simcha, and we then do them as a zecher. In that context, various rishonim and achronim discuss whether an avel is permitted to do hakafos, ie whether the simcha of the day pushes of the fact that a avel is forbidden from simcha. And in all these discussions, when they talk about simcha or mishum simcha, simchas Yom Tov is understood. b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas Torah. But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion would need to be had. c) On the other hand, the obligation to have a seudas mitzvah on finishing learning comes from a statement in gemora shabbas (118b-119a) where Abaye says: he should be rewarded because whenever he heard about a tzurba d'rabanan finishing a mesechta, he would make a yom tov for the Rabbis, which is understood to mean a seudas mitzvah. This is listed as part of a whole list of various Amoraim stating what it is that they believe they should get a special reward for, including being careful in known mitzvos (such a tefillin and tzitzis, and three meals on shabbas) and what are identified as good minhagim (such as not going daled amos with his head uncovered). It is really not clear into which category Abaye's statement falls. And while the Rema in Yore Deah siman 246, si'if 26 does say that " when one finishes a mesechet it is a mitzvah to rejoice and to make a feast, and it is called a seudas mitzvah" - to hang everything we do on Simchas Torah on this one statement in the gemora seems like a breathtaking chiddush. And think about it this way. If I were to finish a mesechta, here today, does that mean I can take the sifrei Torah out of the aron, dance around with them, call up some children (and some people together at once, making the brachos at once), read multiple times, take the sifrei Torah out into the street, (and, if it was shabbas, dance even if in general I held that dancing on shabbas is not permitted, as per the Shulchan Aruch?). Given that the essential siyum that is described in the gemora and referred to by the Rema is on a mesechet in Shas, then all this should be permissible on any day of the week, not just Simchas Torah. Because mai nafka minah. So I suppose it seems to me obvious that all the heterim the Rema refers to cannot be because of the simcha of the siyum, especially as the heterim were in place before the siyum was necessarily happening, historically, which again seems to suggest that the one does not cause the other. I do see that in fact the Aruch HaShulchan seems to support you, as in Orech Chaim siman 669 si'if 2 he says in the middle of the piece: "And also we are accustomed that two are called up together and bless, and even though it is not correct in any event because of the joy of the siyum they do so ." - whereas I would have thought he should say the joy of Yom Tov. So the Aruch HaShulchan would seem to be supporting your position. But still, I cannot see, if the Aruch HaShulchan is saying this, how he can be correct, because the consequences must surely be that any time there is a siyum, such a heter would then be permissible, or at least tolerable. I just can't see how this is right. I cannot see how, even if the whole of klal yisrael this year decided that we were going to have a siyum on kriyas hatorah when we had had a full year since last lockdown (ie assuming a vaccine became widely available and was effective), somewhere in the middle of the year, it would it be mutar as part of holding that siyum on krias haTorah on an ordinary Shabbat, to have the usual Simchas Torah heterim. According to you it would be, but I cannot see that this can be right, and I struggle to believe the Rema would authorise it were he here today. <> Not really. Given that mishum simcha in the context of a Yom Tov is logically understood to mean simchas yom tov, without the modifier, the Rema is just explaining in greater detail why we do everything we do before. That *includes* holding the completion of the krias hatorah cycle on Simchas Torah. ie we arrange to have the siyum on Simchas Torah, *because* of the nature of Simchas Torah, not that Simchas Torah is the way it is because of the siyum of finishing the reading cycle. -Micha Gmar Tov Chana From zev at sero.name Wed Sep 23 17:48:28 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: On 23/9/20 6:37 pm, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an > avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas > Torah. But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion > would need to be had. Last year, when I was an avel, I was told that for Hoshanos I should not go around at all, and should lend my arba minim to someone else who hasn't got them, and have him go around in my place. (Or at least that's how I understood it; it may be that lending the arba minim was simply a suggestion to do someone a chesed, since I wasn't using them.) For Simchas Torah I was told that I could go around with the group, but should not hold a sefer torah while doing so; after the hakafa I could take a sefer and dance with it. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781 zev at sero.name "May this year and its curses end May a new year and its blessings begin" From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 25 05:07:22 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 12:07:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?What_foods_should_one_eat_at_the_seuda_?= =?windows-1252?q?ha=92mafsekes_=28last_meal=29_on_erev_Yom_Kippur=3F?= Message-ID: Please see https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/foods-one-eat-seuda-hamafsekes-last-meal-erev-yom-kippur/?category=yom-kippur&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shsh%20Haazinu%205781%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=32573763&spUserID=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&spJobID=1784317155&spReportId=MTc4NDMxNzE1NQS2 What foods should one eat at the seuda ha?mafsekes (last meal) on erev Yom Kippur? | OU Kosher Certification Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 608:4) writes that on erev Yom Kippur, one should eat light foods that are easily digestible, so one will be able to daven on Yom Kippur with proper concentration. There is a common custom to dip challah in honey. Mishnah... oukosher.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emteitz at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 13:32:06 2020 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 16:32:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What will be with Simchas Torah Message-ID: The comment was made, "Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to our private learning of the parshios, such as those who learned the parsha each week by reading it themselves from a chumash while the shuls were closed? Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv, . . ." It isn't? See OC 385:1. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Sep 29 05:08:16 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:08:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is an Esrog Muktza on Shabbos Message-ID: >From today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. This year, the first day of Sukkos is Shabbos, and there is no mitzvah of lulav and esrog. Can I show my neighbor my beautiful esrog, or is it muktza? Q. Shulchan Aruch (OC 658:2) writes that a lulav is muktzah on Shabbos. Since there is no mitzvah of lulav and esrog on Shabbos, a lulav serves no purpose, and it is mukztah like other tree branches. However, an esrog may be moved, since it has a function; one may smell the fruit. (There is a dispute if the beracha on fragrances is recited when smelling an esrog on Sukkos, since the primary function of an esrog on Sukkos is for the mitzvah of lulav and esrog and not for fragrance. To avoid the uncertainty of reciting a beracha, the Shulchan Aruch recommends not smelling an esrog on Sukkos. Nonetheless the Mishnah Berurah (658:5) writes there is no restriction to smell an esrog on Shabbos and recite a beracha, because there is no mitzvah on that day.) Since, it has a function, it is not muktza, and it may be moved for any purpose. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt?l (Shmiras Shabbos K?Hilchaso 22: note 62) writes that today, since people are protective of their esrogim and will not pass them around to be smelled, they are categorized as ?muktza machmas chisaron kis? (expensive or delicate items that are generally stored in a safe location), which may not be moved for any reason on Shabbos. The Aruch Hashulchan (OC 308:17) appears to rule this way as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 03:05:03 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 06:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: . I have long been bothered by why we cannot start or stop Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/geshem without a formal announcement , yet no announcements at all are required for starting and stopping any of the other changes to our tefilos. This past spring, in Avodah 38:24, I quoted a teshuva from Rav Hershel Schachter, where he tackled this question. (It is titled "Piskei Corona #9: Hallel on Pesach Night and Tefillas Tal". "Our Rav" refers to Rav JB Soloveitchik z"l; the parentheses are Rav Schachter's.) > There is a big difference between She'eila (V'sen Tal Umatar > Livracha) and Hazkara (Mashiv Haruach). See what I wrote in > the name of our Rav in MiPeninei HaRav (section Tefila, number > 5), that changing the descriptions of Hashem (from Mashiv > Haruach to Morid Hatal) requires Reshus Hatzibur, and an > individual is not allowed to make changes on his own. But I still don't understand what makes Mashiv Haruach so unusual. According to Rav Schachter's logic, shouldn't we also need Reshus Hatzibur to change the description of Hashem between HaKeil HaKadosh and HaMelech HaKadosh? Moreover, why is this Reshus Hatzibur required *every* *single* *time* that we start or stop Mashiv Haruach? Why isn't it sufficient that Chazal ordained that we start it every year on Shmini Atzeres, and stop it every year on Pesach? I once questioned how our Yom Tovim have any d'Oraisa status at all: If there's no Beis Din to declare that a certain day was Rosh Chodesh Tishrei, then where does Yom Kippur's status come from? The answer I got (Eliyahu Kitov, The Book of Our Heritage, v 1 pg 230) was that Hillel's beis din was mekadesh in *advance* all future Roshei Chadashim that would be calculated according to his rules. According to this reasoning, the required Reshus Hatzibur doesn't have to come from the gabbai or the chazan. It comes from Chazal, who ordained this schedule of changes to the Amidah, so when the calendar says to make a change, my requirement to do so comes automatically, whether I'm in shul or not, just like for all the other changes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Sep 30 12:02:34 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:02:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] fear of death Message-ID: Sheldon Solomon is a social psychologist at Skidmore College. He earned his B.A. from Franklin and Marshall College and his doctoral degree from the University of Kansas. He is best known for developing terror management theory, along with Jeff Greenberg and Tom Pyszczynski which is concerned with how humans deal with their own sense of mortality Sheldon Solomon - "I feel like there's a real sense in which doing these studies and writing books and lecturing has been my way of avoiding directly confronting my anxieties by turning it (me - fear of death) into an intellectual exercise" [Me - sounds like it could've been said by R'Chaim] Is this a common approach in orthodox circles Gmar tov 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 llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 30 06:10:27 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:10:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Question for Today's Times Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May one fulfill the mitzvah of picking up their lulav and esrog while wearing gloves? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 651:7) writes that if a person wrapped a cloth around their hand and picked up the lulav, some say one has not fulfilled the mitzvah. This is because the cloth is a chatzitza (barrier) between the hand and the lulav. The Mishnah Berurah (651:33) writes that the same applies if one is wearing gloves. He also explains that the reason Shulchan Aruch writes ?some say?, is because this is a matter of dispute among Rishonim. The opinion of the Ran is that if one wrapped their hands with cloth or put on gloves, the cloth is viewed as an extension of one?s hand, and as such, it is not a barrier. Therefore, if one did pick up the lulav while wearing gloves, the lulav should be lifted again to fulfill the mitzvah in accordance with those who view the glove as a chatziza. However, a new beracha would not be said because the mitzvah was already fulfilled according to the Ran. One who must wear gloves in shul should recite the berachos and shake the lulav at home before coming to shul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Jul 1 05:12:56 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:12:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ben Noach and mitzvas kiddush hashem Message-ID: <043501d64fa0$f4d21a60$de764f20$@touchlogic.com> I believe a few issues ago someone asked if benei noach are obligated in mitzvas kiddush hashem (to be moser nefesh to avoid their 7 mitzvos, as we are obligated wrt murder/arayos/AZ) See toldos Noah at length on this subject. Pg. 247-270 Email offline if you want scans.. Are they commanded in mitzvas kiddush hashem (no - rambam) Are they allowed to be moser nefesh for mitzvas kiddush hashem (machlokes) Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid killing someone (machlokes) Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid abortion. q etc From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 1 09:40:03 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 16:40:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux Message-ID: I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? 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 mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Jul 1 15:31:10 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:31:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status Message-ID: <052501d64ff7$52b1d1b0$f8157510$@touchlogic.com> https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/kosher-appliances/467/shattered-dre ams/ ... What is induction cooking? Induction cooking is a revolutionary energy efficient way of cooking without heat. How do you cook without heat? The answer is with electro-magnetic energy. The conventional burner is replaced with a coil of tightly wound copper wire under the glass cooktop. Turning on the "burner" sends electro-magnetic energy through the coil. If you placed your hand on the coil area, you would feel nothing. If you placed an aluminum pan on the same area you would still feel nothing. However, by placing an iron skillet or a pot with an iron core or magnetized stainless steel on the cooktop, the magnetized skillet completes the magnetic connection and the electro-magnetic field of energy transfers directly into the pan. This causes the iron molecules to move very rapidly, giving off heat. In turn, the cookware cooks the food. Lifting the pan off of the cooktop breaks the magnetic connection, and you will no longer be cooking. The cooktop will be heated by the "magnetic" pot or pan, but it does not get hot from the coil. Consequently, any spill onto the ceramic cooktop surface will be a result of an irui kli rishon, spillage from a hot pot, not a heated cooktop as you would have in conventional cooking. Hence, if one would want to kasher the cooktop, it could be accomplished by a lesser means of kasherization, irui kli rishon.10 Although induction cooking offers a koshering benefit, the cooktop cannot be used on Shabbos or Yom Yov because the cooking connection is made once the pot is put onto the coil area. Similarly, one would not be able to remove the pot from the cooktop on Shabbos or Yom Tov because one would be "disconnecting" the magnetic field by removing the pot. While the ability to kasher an induction cooktop is an advantage, the disadvantage of not being able to use it on Shabbos or Yom Tov makes this cooktop impractical, unless one has more than one cooktop in the kitchen (an induction for during the week, and a non-induction for Shabbos and Yom Tov). As with every new advent of technology, one balabusta's dream is another balabusta's nightmare. From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 03:43:44 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:43:44 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 3:00 PM Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was > forbidden. So at least for Ashkenazim this whole issue should not > exist. Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut. > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for the gezeira seem to apply. Even for Sephardim, since the SA is meikel in seif 4 in the case of servants in a beit yisrael. Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 15:43:22 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:43:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:27:08AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > RMB writes: >> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and that >> the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / minhag she'eino >> chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done. > So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b: > Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, v'Rav > Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: > Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? People practice like REbY. Why? R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example of BY chalaq R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah I presume you would say something like: R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: it'r universal pesaq R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something entirely different? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. Author: Widen Your Tent - Rachel Levin Varnhagen - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From cantorwolberg at cox.net Thu Jul 2 05:57:12 2020 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:57:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Something to Ponder Message-ID: To paraphrase this profound statement below by R? Yitzchok from the Talmud R.H. (16b) which is quite timely: Any year that begins without the straightforward, clear and unequivocal tekiya, will sadly end with the wavering sound of defeat ? the terua. ??"? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 05:12:53 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:12:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: . In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this is the one I want to ask about.) > The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation > of Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana > (danger). Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the > Mishnah, shuls were located outside of the cities where it was > not safe to be alone at night. The Rabbis were concerned that > people who came late to shul might be left alone while finishing > to daven. To give latecomers a chance to catch up and finish > davening with everyone else, Chazal extended the davening by > adding Mei'ein Sheva. I've heard this same explanation many times from many sources, but I've never understood it. Mei'ein Sheva is shorter than a single page in most siddurim - does its presence really lengthen the service significantly? If the shuls were outside the cities, it must have taken a certain amount of time to get home, and even to get to the outskirts of the city. Were the latecomers unable to catch up to their neighbors? Were the on-time people unwilling to stay in shul for the one or two minutes needed for the latecomers to finish? If this problem was sufficiently significant for Chazal to enact this measure, there were probably several latecomers every week, not just a single latecomer now and then. If so, couldn't the latecomers simply wait for each other, even if the on-time people rushed to get home? There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better? Thank you in advance. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 07:14:04 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:14:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200702141404.GB25994@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 01:43:44PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was > > forbidden.... > > exist. Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut. > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and > pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh" > it includes any form of cooking by heat... Or, any form of cooking by fire, whether broiling, roasting or boiling or frying in water or oil that are heated by fire. For an example that predates the taqaah, solar cooking. Does a rishon deal with the question of eating an egg cooked in the sand that was placed there by a non-Jew? And, as I opened in my first response, it's not just the Rama; "al ha'eish" and variants are common in the discussion. I don't think it's an Ashkenazi thing, just because the SA doesn't use the idiom himself. > That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a > Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for > the gezeira seem to apply.... The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for refu'ah beShabbos. Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking via fire. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, http://www.aishdas.org/asp eventually it will rise to the top. Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 2 07:13:40 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:13:40 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> > RMB wrote: >> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and >> that the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / >> minhag she'eino chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done. And I wrote: > So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b: > Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, > v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: > Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? <> Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim. If you were having a shiur about the halacha of meat, it would be remiss of you to mention the one, and not the other. And if you were giving a shiur to both Ashkenazim and Sephardim, I hope you would say - CYLOR [the L of course standing for "local"], rather than saying "we pasken" one way or the other. Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel, you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like. There are other opinions, and they might have been brought, but the end of the shiur would say - follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov, whereas I would hope that would not be what you would say regarding BY chalaq. <> But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>. Glatt is a tricky one, because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin. And the question then comes down to, why is it that someone keeps glatt, is it because he wants to be machmir for those who think it is really following the BY's iqur hadin, or is it because that is what his community does. If he is just doing it because he lives with other Hungarians so does it, but he really thinks the Rema is right, and it is a chumra that the people came up with (which you can argue it is, particularly because glatt is not the same as BY chalak) then it is a minhag garua. But if the community does it because they are really holding like the BY (at least to an extent), despite the Rema, I would say it is a minhag chashuv. I thought the better example of what you were saying is milchigs on Shavuos, which has no Rav psak behind it, but which has Rabbinic approval in the form of the Rema. That shows the distinction between what I thought you were arguing and what I am much more clearly. Ie that according to you minhag chashuv has no Rabbinic psak source, it is something the people came up with, but it is a religious practice that the Rabbis then approved, whereas I am saying that for a minhag chashuv to be a minhag chashuv, there needs to be a rabbinic psak that the people are relying on, even if other communities hold differently. And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, and the community then followed. It is not some religious idea, like milchigs on Shavuos, that the community came up with independently and then was approved. If R' Eliezer or Rabbi Meir had never paskened the way they did, then the minhag would never have arisen. That, I thought, was the fundamental distinction between what I am saying and you are saying. That I was saying to be a minhag chashuv, it has to be originally Rav psak derived, that people then followed. Whereas I understood you as saying that a psak is a psak, and different from a minhag chashuv, which had to be people derived, ie bottom up, albeit with Rav approval post fact. And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag? <> But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good thing. Especially as we discussing what are needed for an eruv (a halachic device), or whether the kohanim should duchan during Mincha and nei'ila of Yom Kippur. These aren't things like going around with baskets on your head, or squeezing fruit. They are religious acts. <> Yes. << R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq>> Yes, although I prefer to phrase it the psak that the people as a community [I prefer that to the term "local" as it sounds limited, while communities can be large or small] have adopted following Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, or Rabbi Meir [out of the options available], making it the minhag chashuv. <> I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in psak. To the point where their psak is not a valid psak. The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. Regarding R' Yochanan I believe I am following Rashi. Both Rashi, Tosfos and the Rosh refer us to Ta'anis 26b where it explains that if it is the halacha, you teach it "b'pirka" - ie you learn it out in the public halachic discussions. If it is minhag, you don't teach it b'pirka, but if someone comes to you and asks, you posken that way, and where it says nahagu - one does not rule this way, just "I avid, avid, v'lo mehadrinan lei". And Rashi in Ta'anis, says: U'man d'amar nahagu [ie Rabbi Yochanan] - mashma: hen nohagu me'alehen, aval aino ikar. Uminhag mashmar - Torat minhag yesh b'davar, uminhag kosher hu. The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher. That rather sounds like either it is a minhag taus [which in Yerushalmi speak is aino minhag, such as not working all motzei shabbas, even though this is clearly a religious practice] or a norm that has halachic impact. But it should not be dignified with the name minhag. However over in Eruvin Rashi (quoted approvingly there by Tosfos and the Rosh) uses the language - aval i avide lo machinan byadayhu - ie if they do it, we don't protest. That sounds much more like the minhagim that the Tosfos and the Rosh were discussing in Pesachim as being minhag lo chasuv (ie tolerated, and not gone against in front of, ie you are not to rule publically in front of them, but you don't actually have to keep), which is contrasted to a minhag chasuv. Tosfos in Brachos 52b (d"h nahagu ha'am) draws a different distinction between the situation over in Ta'anis and in Eruvin (and elsewhere, such as Rosh Hashana) and the situation in Brachos where Rabbi Yochanan again says nahagu ha'am [like Beis Hillel in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda - the subject matter being whether we say the blessing over the spices before or after the blessing over the flame in havdala]. Because we [and I think we all in fact, as Tosfos says] l'chatchila go according to this R' Yochanan that we make the blessing over the spices before the flame, and yet it would seem from Eruvin 62b (as understood by Ta'anis) that l'chatchila one shouldn't follow where it says nahagu ha'am, just that where the people are so accustomed, we don't make them go back if they did it wrong (so in the case of the havdala, one would think one should really bless the flame first, and then the spices, just if people did it the other way around, we wouldn't make them repeat havdala). And Tosfos' answer there in Brochos is that over in Eruvin, the nahagu ha'am is contrasted to someone saying "halacha" which means "halacha l'chatchila u'morin ken" and therefore when somebody else says nahagu they are meaning bideved, "aval hacha yachol l'hios d'ain kan ele nahagu greida". Note however that in the case in Brachos everybody agrees the halacha is like Beis Hillel (versus Beis Shammai). The issue at stake is how to understand Beis Hillel - like Rabbi Yehuda or like Rabbi Meir. And while Rabbi Meir would seem to be the stam mishna, we follow Rabbi Yehuda. That feels to me less "al pi Talmud chacham" - it is more how the relevant Talmud Chacham understood another set of talmudei chachamim. Whereas the case in Eruvin 62b is regarding what R' Eliezer ben Yaa'kov himself held (regarding non-Jews assuring a courtyard for eruv purposes, if there was only one Jew) versus Rabbi Meir, or in Eruvin 72 (do you need a shituf and an eruv), or Ta'anis (whether on Yom Kippur the Kohanim should bless at Mincha and ne'ila) ie is a matter of direct psak versus psak. With the sense that according to Rabbi Yochanan the psak in question is plain wrong, and knowledgeable people should ignore it. I think you could thus alternatively argue that Brachos is a classic minhag garua that happened to accord with how Rabbi Yehuda understood Beis Hillel, which in the absence of a clear psak either way, we follow the order the people decided upon, for their own reasons, whereas in the other cases, it is a minhag taus, that the psak is clearly wrong in halachic terms, but because there is this da'as yachid position out there, the hachamim were not prepared, in bideved situations, to make people go back and redo. Or you can say that actually over in Brachos Rabbi Yochanan, while using the term nahagu ha'am, given that it was not used in contrast to minhag k', meant really to say minhag k' - making it a minhag chashuv. Or maybe in fact we just ignore Rabbi Yochanan's expression. And what we are actually following is the ma'ase shehaya of Rava. In any event, for me the key fact is the Rav Huna defines minhag explicitly as going according to a psak, something you, I believe, said couldn't happen. How you understand Rabbi Yochanan, who specifically does not use the term minhag, just nagu ha'am for something which (leaving aside the situation in Brachos) he disapproves of, is secondary. -Micha Regards Chana From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 07:36:54 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:36:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:13:40PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote: >> Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, >> v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: >> Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? >> <> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example >> of BY chalaq > Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is not > what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim... You totally lost me. Neither Shemu'el's nor R Yehudah's "we" are Askenazim or Separadim. ... > Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we > pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel, > you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben > Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like... We are in agreement. >> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt > But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common religious > practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>... Which is exactly what I have R Huna saying here. The actual halakhah is lenient, the hamon am in practice are nohagim to be stringent like REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the stringency. It's not din, but it's a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval -- a minhag chashuv. > Glatt is a tricky one, because of > the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin... Still, Hungarians are following it as minhag, and are more lenient than the Sepharadi half of the world BECAUSE it is "just" minhag. To them. The issue you raise is a distraction from explaining the gemara. > And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely > and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi > Meir, and the community then followed... > And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as > expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' > Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario, > and yet it has the definition of minhag? After the rabbinate said you didn't have to. So in that sense it is "bottom up". The masses chose to do something extrahalachic. >> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah > But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a > minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good > thing.... By "common" hanhagah tovah I meant in contrast to any kind of minhag. Something many pious people do, not the masses. Like learning all night on Shavuos in Lithuania circa 1890. But in principle, even if R Huna meant everyone was doing it: Why would hanhagah tovah mean that the rabbis endorsed it? And I think you then agree with this "in princple, when you write: >> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He >> can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi >> talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something >> entirely different? > I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact > something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a > non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in > certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are > accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The point being here, is > that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in > psak. To the point where their psak is not a valid psak. The problem > being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and > have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. R Yochanan can say something is a hanhagah tovah and not a pesaq nor even an actual minhag. > The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice > with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher... Which according to me is what "minhag garua" means. Whereas you're saying that R Yochanan refers to it as a hanhagah, but is not calling it a minhag garua. Despite the common shoresh. So we agree on w to understand this machloqes, we disagree with what to call each position. To me, Shemu'el and R Yehudah, by talking about pesaq aren't talking about minhag chashuv. To you there are. R Huna is definitely talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq. Which to me is a minhag chashuv and to you a minhag garua. And R Yochanan is talking about a practies that doesn't rise up to that level. Which to me is a minhag garua and to you not even that much. It's all just in the labels, but that changes how we read the rishonim. That is why I ignored all the gemaras you cited that don't use the /nhg/ shoresh. The rest of your post argues for something we agree about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. http://www.aishdas.org/asp All that is left to us is Author: Widen Your Tent to be as human as possible while we are here. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From zev at sero.name Thu Jul 2 08:08:02 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 11:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking > and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul > shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking > with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the food gets hot of its own accord. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 2 11:51:19 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:51:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <003001d650a1$c6ab7350$540259f0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: >> <> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example >> of BY chalaq > Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is > not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim... <> You wrote the words "parallel to my example of BT chalaq" - see above. I responded to *your* example of BY chalaq - because you said that "R' Yehuda amar Shemuel: that's what we pasken - is parallel to my example of BY chalaq" I totally agree that neither Shemuel's nor R' Yehuda's "we" are Ashenazim or Sephardim - but *you* said that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is parallel to your example of BY chalaq (which you contrasted to glatt), and BY chalaq versus glatt is about Ashkenazim and Sephardim. If you agree that BY chalaq is not a parallel, then there is no need for this discussion. But because of the parallel that you brought, I couldn't (and can't) see how you can make the statement below (which you say you agree with): > Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is > what we pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda > amar Shemuel, you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow > R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like... If we agree that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is *not* parallel to BY chalaq, then we can agree we understand R'Yehuda amar Shmuel the same. >> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like >> glatt > But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common > religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>... <> Err, ReBY is actually the lenient one (he says you need two Jews living in a chatzer to assur it for carrying). Rabbi Meir is the stringent one (he says you only need one Jew and the chatzer is assur). So transposing your explanation, but with the correct way round, do you agree that, "the actual halacha is strict, the hamon am are in practice nohagim to be lenient like REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the leniency. It is not din, but it is a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval - a minhag chasuv"? Now do you think that if the people did not have ReBY to rely on, but had just come up with this by themselves, against the halacha of Rabbi Meir, Rav Huna would be so tolerant? If yes, then why did he phrase it as minhag k'RebY? Why didn't he say that if there is only one Jew in the courtyard, the minhag is to carry (because it doesn't' matter whether ReBY said so or not)? But if it *does* matter that ReBY said so, then you need more than just the people coming up with this idea of only one Jew living on the chatzer themselves. You need ReBY, or some other Rav, to have said so, followed by community acceptance to have it become a minhag. > Glatt is a tricky one, > because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin... > And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as > expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' > Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated > scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag? <> There were two different piskei halacha out there. ReBY (the lenient one) and R' Meir (the stringent one). R' Yehuda amar Shmuel states emphatically that ReBY is right, Halachically, and that the halacha is like him. R' Huna appears not to agree, otherwise he would have said what R' Yehuda amar Shemuel said. Rather, he accepts that the people having made the choice to go for the lenient position as a valid minhag. It is partially bottom up in that the people have made a choice between Psak A and Psak B, and decided to follow Psak A, in this case the lenient psak, but I do not believe they have decided to do something extrahalachic independent of there being two piskei halacha out there. It is the same scenario as following R' Yossi for milk and chicken, or Rabbi Eliezer for cutting the wood to make the knife to do the bris on shabbas. Or moving a lit candle on shabbas. Or working or not working erev pesach morning. Each case is the same underlying scenario: there were a range of piskei halacha out there. And certain communities, or sometimes the whole people, decided to follow one psak over another (even though in pure halachic terms that isn't necessarily the halacha). That is what makes it a minhag chasuv, as articulated by the Ri and the Rosh, ie that it is al pi Talmud chacham, and not just something the people came up with on their own, even where the people can provide religious justification. RMB: >> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah Chana: > But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a > minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a > good thing.... <> *Hanhaga tova* is *your* language, not mine. I assume you mean R' Yochanan here, not R' Huna, because you are the one who applied the words hanhaga tova to R' Yochanan in a previous post. I don't at all think that R' Yochanan is describing what he thinks of as a "hanhaga tova". I think (and I believe Rashi and Tosfos agree with me) that in this context if you have to use the term hanhaga, then he believes he is describing a hanhaga ra. <> No idea what you mean here. >> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? >> He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY >> is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to >> mine or something entirely different? > I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact > something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a > non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish > people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things > people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The > point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is > actually flat out wrong in psak. To the point where their psak is not > a valid psak. The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the > people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. <> He could, but in the context, where he is dealing with a situation where there is a lenient psak and a stringent psak, and where the people are going according to the lenient psak, he is clearly not saying that. He is saying it wrong what the people are doing, but if you come across somebody who has done it, they either don't have to reverse what they have done, or you don't need to create a fuss (as they have what he considers a da'as yachid to rely on). Depending on which Rashi you follow (and presumably Rashi/Tosfos in Eruvin had a different girsa in Ta'anis, given that they don't quote "not reversing", but "not protesting"). > The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this > practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher... <> Hanhaga was, as mentioned, your language, not mine. I said that one interpretation of Rabbi Yochanan is a minhag garua - that is if you hold that it is something that one shouldn't protest. Just like all the other cases in Pesachim where the rabbis said not to protest the minhagim. However if it is something one should protest, just that one doesn't make people do things again (ie our girsa in Ta'anis), then that appears to be less than a minhag garua (more like a minhag taus). <> No, I don't think so. <> No, I never said that, and I don't think so. In the case of Shmuel and R Yehuda we are talking about psak. <> No. To me what R' Huna is talking about is also minhag chashuv. I didn't think you agreed with that, but am fine if you do. If you agree that this is a minhag chashuv, then it would seem that what we disagree about is whether or not Rav Huna is "talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq". You say definitely, ie "definitely talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq". I don't think this is right at all. I believe Rav Huna is talking about a common practice performed by the people *in light of ReBY's psak* Which is precisely why he phrases it as "minhag k'ReBY". Because the fact that there was a psak from ReBY is critical to his understanding. It is what makes it a minhag choshuv (and not a minhag garua). Just as the Ri and the Rosh and the Shach say that the definition of a minhag chasuv is that it is "al pi talmid chacham". This is "al pi talmid chacham" - the psak of ReBY, which is key to what drove the people. No ReBY, no such minhag. And R' Huna is expressing this clearly by linking the minhag with the psak of ReBY. <> Not quite. If we didn't have the girsa we do in Ta'anis, ie we had the girsa that Rashi and Tosfos in Eruvin seem to have had, I would say this was a minhag garua. Problem is, our girsa in Ta'anis doesn't just say, we don't protest, but we don't make them do over again or go back (given that in Ta'anis we are talking about kohanim duchaning at nei'lah, presumably that means we don't have the Shatz resay the non duchaning language, after the kohanim have ostensibly duchened, or make the kohanim sit down once they have said the bracha). That suggests that we do in fact protest if we can get to them before they get started duchening. I don't think something that the chachamim were prepared to protest, even if the view they are protesting is based on the psak of a Talmud Chacham, can be considered any kind of minhag, except perhaps a minhag taus. <> I agree it is all in the labels, but I thought there was something more fundamental here. My understanding of your position was that if the people were following a particular psak (such as the people following the psak of ReBY or the people following the psak of Rabbi Yehuda not to work on the morning of erev pesach), that could not be called minhag. Rathein your view minhag, including minhag choshuv, had to be something that was generated by the people themselves, like milchigs on Shavuos, ie completely bottom up. That is why I could not see how you characterised what R' Huna said, of minhag k'ReBY as minhag, as it didn't seem to fit. Whereas my understanding of a minhag chashuv was that it needed to have at its root a psak of a Rav, with the bottom up aspect of it being the people's, or a community of people's, decision to take on that particular psak, even in the face of disagreement from other Rabbonim. That seems to fit perfectly with Rav Huna's statement of minhag k'ReBY. I thus understand a completely bottom up minhag as falling within the category of minhag garua (or just minhag)- although even within that category, there are those that have strong rabbinic approval, and those that have weak to non-existent rabbinic approval (depending on how garua they are). But like your minhag chashuv, my minhag garua does have to relate to something religious/halachic, even though at some point one reaches a situation where the rabbis come out full force against what the people are doing. The reason I am so vague about the line between minhag garua and minhag taus, is that this line seems very difficult to define, Ie at what point does a minhag which is very garua tip into a minhag taus seems hard for me to pinpoint (I have been looking at two cases of very dodgy minhagim, namely women in states of tuma'ah - both involving, inter alia, women not going to shul - one during their periods, and one in the period after giving birth, and the attitudes towards them couldn't be more different. The one is reasonably accepted as something of an acceptable minhag, with some rabbinic blessing, even though the origins are difficult, and it is clear it is solely women generated, while the other gets the full minhag taus, must be stamped out, treatment, at least amongst some. Even though on first glance they would seem to be directly parallel). While you, I thought given that you characterised what I called minhag garua as being minhag chasuv, understood minhag garua as being something done even by non-Jews that had halachic impact, which didn't seem to me to be what was being discussed in the gemora in Pesachim at any point, and hence not the subject of the Ri and Rosh's distinction there. -Micha Regards Chana From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 14:38:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 17:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: free public transport on Shabbos/Yomtov In-Reply-To: <004401d644dc$61126e20$23374a60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004401d644dc$61126e20$23374a60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200702213852.GD25994@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 08:20:35PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > There are a fair number of shops, but there are a fair number of houses too > (and some blocks of flats, definitely majority Jewish). We know people who > live in a couple of the houses right on Golders Green road... A balebatishe comment: It needn't be people right on the road, though. Bus lines are routed to serve neighborhoods. Even if it were a street entirely of shops and other commercial enterprises, a route would take into account any residential areas that are in easy walking distance to any stops. Which is certainly true of what I remember from Golder's Green Road. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless http://www.aishdas.org/asp he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. Author: Widen Your Tent Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 15:23:32 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:23:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 00:29 Zev Sero via Avodah, wrote: > On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking > > and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul > > shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking > > with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. > > Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. > The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the > food gets hot of its own accord. > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and metal heated by a magnetic field? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 15:45:36 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:45:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <20200702141404.GB25994@aishdas.org> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Simon Montagu Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 01:44 Subject: Re: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status To: Micha Berger On Thu, 2 Jul 2020, 17:14 Micha Berger, wrote: > > The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't > apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for > refu'ah beShabbos. > > Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the > gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their > motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking > via fir > Lo p'log is not a universal. There are plenty of cases where hazal and the pos'kim explore in which scenarios gezeirot are or are not relevant (as opposed to implementation details in what is essentially the same situation, such as pianos or violins on shabbat). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 15:58:34 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:58:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais haVaad] Police Protection: Are Officers Liable for Injuries They Inflict? Message-ID: <20200702225834.GA17037@aishdas.org> I think this topic has crossed all of our minds lately. >From https://www.baishavaad.org/police-protection-are-officers-liable-for-injuries-they-inflict/ Tir'u baTov! -Micha The Bais HaVaad Halacha Center Police Protection: Are Officers Liable for Injuries They Inflict? Adapted from the writings of Dayan Yitzhak Grossman July 2, 2020 On June 12, Atlanta Police Department officers Garrett Rolfe and Devin Brosnan were attempting to handcuff Rayshard Brooks and arrest him for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Brooks wrestled with the officers, seized Brosnan's Taser, and attempted to flee. With Rolfe pursuing him, Brooks turned and fired the Taser toward Rolfe. Rolfe then shot at Brooks three times, striking him twice in the back and killing him. Rolfe was subsequently charged with felony murder and ten other offenses. In considering Rolfe's possible culpability for killing Brooks, the first issue is whether the shooting was justified as self-defense. We do not consider here this specific question, but only the general question of the liability of a duly authorized agent of the state for the use of force resulting in injury or death. Agents of the court In the Mishnah, Abba Sha'ul rules that a father who strikes his son, a teacher who disciplines his student, and an agent of the court, who accidentally kill, are not subject to the law of exile (galus).[1] The Tosefta rules similarly with regard to civil liability for nonlethal injury: The father, the teacher, and the agent of the court are all exempt, unless the force used is "more than is appropriate," in which case they are liable.[2] An alternate formulation appears elsewhere in the Tosefta: The agent is exempt if he injures inadvertently (b'shogeg), but liable if he injures deliberately (b'meizid), "out of concern for tikun olam."[3] R' Shimon ben Tzemach Duran explains that these two formulations are equivalent: If the force used is "appropriate" but nevertheless results in injury, the agent is considered shogeg, but if it is "more than is appropriate," he is considered meizid. He also explains that the liability in the case of meizid is in accordance with the normal laws of torts, and the concern for tikun olam is the rationale for the exemption of shogeg, i.e., Chazal absolved a shogeg from liability despite the principle of adam muad l'olam, by which people are usually held liable for torts committed b'shogeg.[4] It would seem that according to this approach, "shogeg" here has its general meaning of an act that while inadvertent, nevertheless has an element of negligence to it, and so would engender liability were it not for the concern for tikun olam, since it would seem absurd for an agent of the court who carried out his duty entirely properly to be liable for its consequences (were it not for tikun olam), any more than the court itself and its agents would be liable as tortfeasors for the very imposition of punishment such as lashes or execution upon a miscreant![5] In apparent contradiction to the assumption of the Tosefta that an agent of the court is not authorized to use more force than necessary to carry out his duty stands a ruling of Rabbeinu Yerucham ben Meshulam, accepted by some poskim, that an agent of the court who strikes the body or damages the property of a recalcitrant person is exempt even if he was able to accomplish his goal by other means.[6] It seems that this opinion understands that the availability of nonviolent means does not automatically render the use of violence "more than is appropriate." Thus in Rabbeinu Yerucham's case, although alternative nonviolent means were available, once the agent chose to utilize violence, the level of force he used was the minimum necessary to accomplish his goal, whereas in the case of the Tosefta, the level of force utilized was gratuitously high. Alternatively, some contemporary writers consider it self-evident that Rabbeinu Yerucham concedes that the authorities have no right to use "excessive" and "unreasonable" force relative to the goal of preserving the rule of law.[7] Perhaps, then, when the Tosefta assigns liability where the force used was "more than is appropriate," it is referring to just such "excessive" and "unreasonable" force. In any event, other poskim disagree with Rabbeinu Yerucham's ruling and maintain that an agent of the court is only exempt from liability for the use of force if he had no other means to achieve his goal.[8] The exemption of an agent of the court only applies provided force was used in order to compel compliance with the court's directives, but not when motivated by anger.[9] Some contemporary writers assume that a police officer would have the same status as the "agent of the court" discussed by Chazal and would therefore be exempt from liability insofar as his use of force was appropriate. __________________________________________________________________ [1]Makkos 2:2. Cf. Rambam and Ra'avad Hilchos Rotzeiach Ushmiras Hanefesh 5:6, and Bnei V'lechem Yehudah, Bnei Shmuel, Gur Aryeh, Hamei'ir La'aretz, Kruv Mimshach, Ma'asei Rokeach, Mirkeves Hamishneh, Ein Tarshish, and Shufrei D'Yaakov ibid.; Shu"t Shevus Yaakov cheilek 3 siman 140; R. Yehuda Zoldan, Tzidkas Yehuda V'Yisrael, siman 6 os 1; R. Moshe Taragin, Shliach Bais Din Sheharag Beshogeg. One version of the Tosefta contains a position contrary to that of Abba Sha'ul; see Or Sameiach Hilchos Rotzeiach 5:6 and Tzidkas Yehuda V'Yisrael ibid. [2]Tosefta Bava Kama 9:3. [3]Ibid. Gittin 3:13. [4]Shu"t Tashbatz cheilek 3 siman 82. [5]This is certainly true according to the poskim that maintain that the principle of adam muad l'olam does not apply to oness gamur (see Tosafos Bava Kama 27b s.v. uShmuel amar; Shulchan Aruch C.M. 378:1-3 and Shach ibid. s.k. 1). [6]Sefer Maysharim Nesiv 31 cheilek 2 p. 92 second column, cited by Sema C.M. siman 8 s.k. 25 and Ba'er Heitev ibid. s.k. 8. [7]Adv. Yaakov Shapiro and Dr. Michael Vigoda, Shimush B'choach al Yedei Hamishtarah, n. 33. [8]Toras Chaim Bava Kama end of daf 28; Shevus Yaakov cheilek 1 siman 180, cited in Pis'chei Teshuvah ibid. s.k. 6; Sha'ar Mishpat ibid. s.k. 2; Aruch Hashulchan ibid. se'if 6; Yeshuos Yisrael ibid. Ein Mishpat s.k. 2 and Chukas Hamishpat s.k. 6. Erech Shai ibid. se'if 5 concludes that the matter is a s'feika d'dina. Cf. Halacha Pesukah ibid. p. 86 n. 214. [9]Shu"t Ra'anach (Yerushalayim 5720) siman 111 p. 475. Cf. Shevus Ya'akov cheilek 3 end of siman 140 and Shimush B'choach al Yedei Hamishtarah. From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 16:02:21 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:02:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200702230221.GA7250@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 01:23:32AM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: >> Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. >> The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the >> food gets hot of its own accord. > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and > metal heated by a magnetic field? I believe Zev is saying that the induction cooker doesn't cause any metal to glow. However, when you cook on an old-school electric stove, the coil will glow. And glowing is included in "eish". (I'm not sure about the last part. I think it would depend on whether causing a gachales shel mateches is bishul or havarah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. http://www.aishdas.org/asp Life is about creating yourself. Author: Widen Your Tent - George Bernard Shaw - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From zev at sero.name Thu Jul 2 17:03:56 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 20:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: On 2/7/20 6:23 pm, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > Glowing hot metal is included in "fire".? Here there is no fire at all. > The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the > food gets hot of its own accord. > > > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and > metal heated by a magnetic field? The pot or pan doesn't get nearly hot enough to qualify as fire. It doesn't have to, since it's heating the food directly, rather than heating a pot sitting on top of it, which will then heat the food it contains. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Thu Jul 2 17:02:12 2020 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 00:02:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Realities of Times Past (Was: Latecomers to shul on Friday night) Message-ID: R?Akiva Miller asks (38/54) a typically thoughtful question about adding Magen Avot on Friday night. The reasoning and realities are difficult to understand, he notes, and so he asks, ?There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better?? I don?t have any answers for him but I have similar questions about reasons given for other changes in halacha. For example, we don?t blow shofar on RH that falls on Shabbat (thus missing out on a Biblical commandment) because of three maybes: (a) maybe someone will be blowing who doesn?t know how to do do properly, (b) maybe that will happen on a Shabbat RH, and (c) maybe that person will carry the shofar in a reshut harabim to an expert for instruction. Well, how often would that occur? Was this common in those days? And if so, why? It?s not common today for shofar blowers to go to experts on RH to give them instruction. And equally difficult fir me to understand, wasn?t there some other way to prevent the triple maybe sin of carrying other than making all the Jewish people for generations on end miss out on a once a year biblical commandment.? Was society so different that this was really an otherwise unmanageable problem at the time the ruling was put into effect? To paraphrase Akiva, there?s something that I'm missing about the realities of that time; can anyone explain the reasoning better? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From marty.bluke at gmail.com Fri Jul 3 00:13:36 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 10:13:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop Message-ID: R? Simon Montagu asked: > That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a > Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for > the gezeira seem to apply.... This would seem to be a classic case of davar shebminyan tzorich minyan acher lhatiro which we don?t have. There are many gezeras that we observe today even though the reason behind the gezera no longer applies. For example, taking medicine on shabbos is prohibited because you may grind the ingredients. In today?s world of pills the reason no longer applies yet most poskim still prohibit taking pills for something like a headache. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:17:50 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 17:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200706211750.GA10250@aishdas.org> Someone pointed me to https://www.torahbase.org/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%A0%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D See section 6. R' Asher Weid isn't comfortable have a nakhri cook for you by microwave. Something I had thought was pretty commonly accepted. In this case, he allws, but only because the situation that required getting a housekeeper to cook is a she'as hadechaq, and because hiring a Jewish housekeeper would be a hotza'ah merubah. Only adding the lack of aish as a yeish le'ayein and is willing to use it as an additional "chazi le'itztarufei". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he http://www.aishdas.org/asp brought an offering. But to bring an offering, Author: Widen Your Tent you must know where to slaughter and what - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 01:31:54 2020 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:31:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Realities of Times Past (Was: Latecomers to shul on Friday night) Message-ID: Fellow Ovedim have (IIRC at the behest of RAM who asked the question) been wondering why Tefillat Me'eyn Sheva' is said on Friday evenings. RJK particularly cited RAM: > "The reasoning and realities are difficult to understand," he notes, " > and so," he asks: "There's something that I'm missing about the > realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they > davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain > the story better?" There may be a clue in an article by Jacob Mann. Jacob Mann was, as far as I can reconstruct, a Pzsworsker Chassid who loved Judaism and learning, but upon landing the USA possibly tragically aligned himself with the wrong crowd. But this is just a reconstruction. For all I know, him publishing a bunch of articles in the Reform"Hebrew Union College Annual" may have been because it was in his eyes the most widespread scholarly publication, one that would afford him the most exposure. Interestingly, he insisted on transliterating Hebrew into Ashkenazi pronunciation, and HUCA agreed. At any rate, he was a pretty interesting historian of liturgy and may have been on to certain things correctly. In an article entitled Changes in the Divine Service of the Synagogue due to Persecution, he brings evidence for several periods of anti Jewish persecutions in which certain prayers or practices were prohibited, giving rise to creative solutions. Though he does not deal with Me'eyn Sheva' (as far as I remember), the setting seems to work well. Perhaps Me'eyn Sheva came from a time when Jews had to pray outside the settlements, because they were praying in hiding, and thus had to watch out for each other's safety. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 03:59:50 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:59:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status Message-ID: Rav Hershel Schachter has a fascinating essay in his Sefer about when we say lo plug by gezeros and when not. It has been a while but I believe he says that gezeros are all lo plug except if the reason was written into the nusach of the gezera. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 13:16:24 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 16:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200707201624.GE25868@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 01:59:50PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Rav Hershel Schachter has a fascinating essay in his Sefer about when we > say lo plug by gezeros and when not. It has been a while but I believe he > says that gezeros are all lo plug except if the reason was written into the > nusach of the gezera. The problem is, that determination is often non-trivial to make. Where is the end-quote -- is the explanation part of the quote of the wording of the gezeira, or the gemara's explanation of its purpose stated and stated after the quote? We discussed this idea many years ago, when I proposed this was the root of the machloqes about basar kafui. Very related is that it is also sometimes unclear when something is a pesaq in existing law, and when a gezeira. If it's a pesaq, then applicability is built in whether or not it's stated. Pesaqim only hold if the situation is materially the same. What the gemara says about putting out a burning house on Shabbos wouldn't apply to a wood-frame house in an urban or most suburban settings because the risk to life is simply different. Like the Peri Chadash vs the Chasam Sofer about chalav yisrael; the PC says CY is a pesaq, so he has little problem saying that CY is moot when there is other disincentive to adulterating the milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness http://www.aishdas.org/asp which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost Author: Widen Your Tent again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Jul 7 14:44:42 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 21:44:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Risk Reward Message-ID: <1594171681704.0f3bd39e3250de82@aishdas.org> A note I wrote To a pulpit rabbi: I strongly support a recent discussion concerning return to synagogue. I do have to say that there's one point that I deeply disagree on. Maybe it's a matter of nuance that cannot be communicated in trying times to the general public. I don't believe that flattening the curve has no halachic import. In fact as a community we are always making this kind of trade off. If not why wouldn't we spend every dollar we have on improving public health. The answer per R' Schachter and R' Weiss is that's the way the world operates. Bottom line risk reward tradeoffs are often very difficult. Personally I'd prefer we be more open and honest about them and have public discussion but realize that may not be practical So what is the halachic philosophy of risk/reward? perhaps a starting point The cohain gadol and the alternates for himself or wife on Yom Kippur? Kt Joel Rich From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 19:15:59 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 22:15:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Francis Collins on Science and Religion Message-ID: <20200708021559.GA27334@aishdas.org> An interview with Dr. Francis Collins (an Obama appointee now most famous for being Dr. Anthony Fauci's boss). https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/anthony-faucis-boss-on-why-things-could-be-much-better-soon.html Three snippets that are on topic for our group, but there is more discussion of G-d there than this: "I was an atheist when I entered medical school. I was a Christian when I left and it was much driven by this experience of trying to integrate the reductionist aspects of science into the much more fundamental issues I saw my patients wrestling with, like is there a God and does God care about me and what happens after I die? "Those are uncomfortable questions for an atheist 23-year-old, but ultimately they became totally compelling and required some investigation and some answers. Ultimately, out of that, it came to me that it makes a lot more sense to believe in God than to deny God's existence. A scientist isn't supposed to make assertions that you would call universal negatives, because you can never have enough evidence to do that, and yet that's what atheism calls you to do. ... "Similarly, the way that some people have caricatured science as a threat to God, that doesn't resemble the science that I'm doing. It's been a terrible, I think, consequence of our last century or so that this polarization has been accepted as inevitable when I see it not at all in that light. There are many interesting scientific questions that tap into the kind of area that you're asking about, like what is the neuroscientific basis of consciousness? What is the neuroscientific basis of a spiritual experience? If there is such a neuroscientific basis, does that make this spiritual experience less meaningful or more so? Those are fun conversations to have." "... What is our future? I don't want to see a future where this science-versus-faith conflict leads to a winner and a loser. If science wins and faith loses, we end up with a purely technological society that has lost its moorings and foundation for morality. I think that could be a very harsh and potentially violent outcome. But I don't want to see a society either where the argument that science is not to be trusted because it doesn't agree with somebody's interpretation of a Bible verse wins out. That forces us back into a circumstance where many of the gifts that God has given us through intellectual curiosity and the tools of science have to be put away. "So I want to see a society that flourishes by bringing these worldviews together by being careful about which worldview is most likely to give you the truth, depending on the question you're asking." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole http://www.aishdas.org/asp heart, your entire soul, and all you own." Author: Widen Your Tent Love is not two who look at each other, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:30:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714183052.GC21268@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:40:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate > dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), > as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will > be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised > (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- > r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? I'm uncomfortable with your formulation, but I think I agree with your point. As microelectronics become more embedded in society, it's harder to consider their use uvda dechol. So pesaqim ought change. In RMF's case.... What changed over time was not whether a given fact was uvda dechol. He assumed that use of a timer would pose mar'is ayin issues, and that metzi'us changed. A close parallel, but not exactly the same. And yes, it could well be the tzibbur who make that point known to the posqim. (Especially today, when the gedolim we look to for pesaq often are men who never left yeshiva life. As opposed to the previous generations when we looked to the town's rav for pesaqim.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward http://www.aishdas.org/asp by patting yourself on the back. Author: Widen Your Tent -Anonymous - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:30:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714183052.GC21268@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:40:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate > dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), > as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will > be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised > (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- > r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? I'm uncomfortable with your formulation, but I think I agree with your point. As microelectronics become more embedded in society, it's harder to consider their use uvda dechol. So pesaqim ought change. In RMF's case.... What changed over time was not whether a given fact was uvda dechol. He assumed that use of a timer would pose mar'is ayin issues, and that metzi'us changed. A close parallel, but not exactly the same. And yes, it could well be the tzibbur who make that point known to the posqim. (Especially today, when the gedolim we look to for pesaq often are men who never left yeshiva life. As opposed to the previous generations when we looked to the town's rav for pesaqim.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward http://www.aishdas.org/asp by patting yourself on the back. Author: Widen Your Tent -Anonymous - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:21:12 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Yehareig velo ya'avor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I posted on this issue here and on another list: >> If a Ben Noach [Noahide, i.e. non-Jew] is being forced to abrogate >> one of his 7 mitzvot... > I received this [from Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter]: >> If you accept the authority of Rambam, this is black-letter law. See Sefer >> Shoftim, Hilkhoth Mlakhim UMilxmotheyhem, Chapter 10, Paragraph 2: "A Ben-Noax >> who is compelled to violate one of his commandments is allowed to do so > Thanks for the cite! If you check out the mishneh lmelech there For those who didn't look, it's at: https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rtype=%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98&mfid=104611&rid=15005 > he refers > to the parshat drachim derech atarim (drasha #2) who makes exactly the > argument I proposed as why a ben noach would be required to give up his > life rather than kill someone. But also says "debishfichus damim mitzvah haben-noach sheyeihareig ve'al ya'avor". By making it about "mai chazis" it isn't about the 7 mitzvos in general, or even the other two mitzvos that for Jews are yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Rather, because the only question is who dies, not the comparative values are life vs obedience. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation http://www.aishdas.org/asp -- just think of an incurable disease such as Author: Widen Your Tent inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:25:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:25:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:38:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger wrote: >> But in general, there is an increasing reluctance to pasqen in >> some circles. Whether Brisker chumeros or the MB's advice to >> either play safe in some places or avoid the question in another. >> So, we're seeing more and more of it. > I spent a couple of minutes trying to think of examples of this phenomenon, > and I ended up agreeing that this *seems* to be more common in hilchos > brachos... > However, in most other areas of halacha, it's not a choice of this or that. > It's a question of issur and heter. (Or of chiyuv and not.) In such cases, > "avoiding the situation" tends to be synonymous with "being machmir".... I would agree for the "defy the question" pesaqim being more common in hilkhos berakhos. But I don't see Brisker chumeros or baal nefesh yachmir being more of a berakhah thing. Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of safeiq would be lehaqeil. My largely implied question was how to save this reluctance to pasqen from accusations of lack of faith in the entire concept of pesaq and deciding halakhah. Nu, so for the Briskers, I takeh think they don't believe that a pesaq settles the din anymore. As the Rambam put it, Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah. But for the CC and the rest of us? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; http://www.aishdas.org/asp Experience comes from bad decisions. Author: Widen Your Tent - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From zev at sero.name Tue Jul 14 12:29:37 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Yehareig velo ya'avor In-Reply-To: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> References: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <27345b4a-f329-cfd4-8b0f-8b8be1147f72@sero.name> >> Thanks for the cite! If you check out the mishneh lmelech there > > For those who didn't look, it's at: > https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rtype=%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98&mfid=104611&rid=15005 > >> he refers >> to the parshat drachim derech atarim (drasha #2) who makes exactly the >> argument I proposed as why a ben noach would be required to give up his >> life rather than kill someone. > > But also says "debishfichus damim mitzvah haben-noach sheyeihareig ve'al > ya'avor". By making it about "mai chazis" it isn't about the 7 mitzvos > in general, or even the other two mitzvos that for Jews are yeihareig > ve'al ya'avor. Rather, because the only question is who dies, not the > comparative values are life vs obedience. Thank you. However if the Rambam agreed with this it's odd that he didn't say so. And the svara against it seems fairly simple: Yisrael are commanded in kiddush haShem; we're expected to sometimes put obedience ahead of our lives. Therefore when considering for which mitzvos we must do so, the svara of "mai chazis" compels us to include this. It wouldn't make sense to say that for AZ we must be moser nefesh, but for shfichas damim we needn't. But for Bnei Noach the whole concept of mesirus nefesh doesn't exist. They are never expected to do that; we have an explicit pasuk that they're even allowed to serve AZ rather than die. So how can we tell them to sacrifice themselves for mai chazis? On the contrary, they will tell you exactly mai chazina -- this is my life and that is his. To *me* my life is more important than his, just as I expect that to *him* his life is more important than mine. Just as I would give my life to save my children, because theirs are more important to me than mine, so I will give your life to save mine, because mine is more important to me than yours. It's only once the principle that there is something higher than survival is established that we can extend it with mai chazis. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Tue Jul 14 12:55:07 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:55:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <722273ba-58af-d192-57ea-032a8f9cd3e5@sero.name> On 14/7/20 2:25 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Nu, so for the Briskers, I takeh think they don't believe that a pesaq > settles the din anymore. As the Rambam put it, Rav Ashi veRavina sof > hora'ah. Or, they believe in psak in principle, but not in their own ability to pasken, and they're not too sure about your ability either, or his or his or his. But I think there's also a good helping of the gemara's statement that a baal nefesh doesn't eat meat on which a psak was required; as the proverb goes, "a shayla macht treif". Only if the heter is found explicitly in the sources, so that no reasoning was needed can one eat the meat without any qualms. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 03:25:38 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 06:25:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue Message-ID: . R" Micha Berger wrote: > Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't > which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because > there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of > safeiq would be lehaqeil. Safeiq "rather than" pesaq?? Can the two be differentiated? Isn't psak *based* on safek, trying to figure out where Truth resides? > My largely implied question was how to save this reluctance to > pasqen from accusations of lack of faith in the entire concept > of pesaq and deciding halakhah. As I see it, it's not that we have a lack of *faith* in psak, but that we're so confused about how it works. And especially, how it works nowadays when there's no Sanhedrin. To me, the classic case in bitul is bitul b'rov. Does the minority really lose its identity to the point that all pieces can be eaten by a single person at one time? Or is it only a procedural psak, such that we are fearful for each item, and they must be shared among several people, or eaten by one person at different times, etc etc. And it carries through to psak too. Can I really ignore the minority opinion? Without a Sanhedrin to actually discuss and vote, how can I be sure that the other camp is wrong? And so, just as we "avoided the issue" by having several people share the probably-kosher items, we also "avoid the issue" in psak by finding a situation where we don't choose between the several opinions. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 15 02:48:25 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:48:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] action or results? Message-ID: There are four identical quadruplets brothers, Robert, Simon, Larry and Judah. Robert , Larry and Simon are all asymptomatic carriers of the corona virus but Judah is not. The local law and rabbinic authorities require wearing a mask when going out in public but none of them do. The four brothers are not clearly identifiable, when seen, as orthodox Jews but are so known by the public. They all go outside to identical public events where their identities are not known. Robert infects a number of people but he's never identified as the source of the infection. Larry infects a number of people and is identified as a source of infection in the media. Judah never infects anybody and neither does Simon. What shows up on each brothers' permanent record card in shamayim? Is it multidimensional? 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 JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 15 02:50:41 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? 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 zev at sero.name Wed Jul 15 07:03:18 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5622a8f8-7434-2f3e-086c-d0052a01ff28@sero.name> On 15/7/20 5:50 am, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required to > give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol > worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching > theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and > not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? I don't believe there is. These three are not worse than other sins. E.g. murder is only an issur hereg, and is therefore *less* severe than any issur skila and sreifa. So the term "Big 3" is a misnomer; they're in the category for being big. And they didn't all get in to the category in the same way. Avoda Zara comes from the pasuk "venikdashti". Murder comes in from the svara of "mai chazis". And all the arayos come in because of the pasuk that compares eshes ish to murder, so they are included in the "mai chazis" even though that svara doesn't apply to them! Which is very strange. Then there are other mitzvos that also *obviously* override pikuach nefesh, so obviously that they don't need to be listed, such as milchemes mitzvah. (For that matter, since one is required to go even to a milchemes hareshus if the king conscripts one, that too must override pikuach nefesh. And obviously war overrides venishmartem.) Bris also involves a certain level of risk, and historically it was just accepted that a certain number of babies will die from it, and that we have to accept this. So to that extent it also overrides pikuach nefesh, until the risk rises high enough to change that. Losing one child obviously increases the probability of there being a genetic defect in the family, and yet it is not enough to cancel future brissen in that family. Only a second loss does that. Then we have a pasuk that earning a living justifies taking certain risks with ones life; while I wouldn't call this overriding pikuach nefesh or venishmartem, it obviously puts a limit on those principles that many people don't consciously acknowledge. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 15:13:54 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200715221354.GF8072@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:50:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required > to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol > worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching > theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and > not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? One is the greatest violation of Torah, one of Avodah, and one of Gemilus Chassadim. AZ as the inverse of Avodah and Murder as the inverse of Gema"ch shouldn't need elaboration. As for arayos... In the Maharal's commentary on that mishnah, he describes the three amudei olam as a relationship with one's soul, with G-d and with other people. Torah perfects the relatiosionship with oneself. Whereas someone who pursues arayos turns that self into a menuval. Torah is about perfection of the mind, middos and the rest of the soul. Arayos is about giving up on all that and just answering to the body. Living cannot be at the expense of an axe to a pillar one's life stands on. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of http://www.aishdas.org/asp greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, Author: Widen Your Tent in fact, of our modesty. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 05:42:49 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 08:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required > to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of > idol worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one > overarching theme that links these three transgressions that explains > why these and not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? If there's an overarching theme, I haven't found it yet. I have tried to find the reason for each of these three, what makes them different than the other 610, and I've come up with very different answers for each of them. If I'm not mistaken, murder is the only one for which the Gemara gives an explicit reason. If my life is at stake, and the only solution is at the cost of someone else's life, who's to say that my blood is redder? Simple math. Or simple logic, your choice. Next is avodah zara. I came up with this answer myself, so I eagerly welcome any comments about it. My logic is like this: An inventive mind can come up with all sorts of justifications for violating mitzvos in extreme circumstances. "Violate this Shabbos so he will keep many other Shabbosos," for example. Eliyahu built a bamah on Har Carmel, because he knew it would lead to Kiddush Hashem. But Avoda Zara is the sort of thing where - by definition - the means NEVER justify the ends. There is NO situation in which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be Kiddush Hashem. It's a contradiction in terms. Even the opportunity to do mitzvos for the rest of my life can't justify an actual Avodah Zara today. (I'm not talking about where someone merely pretends to do Avodah Zara; that's a more complicated topic and might be justified by some poskim in some cases.) But to actually do real Avodah Zara is treason against Hashem and never allowed. That leaves Arayos. This is a very strange halacha, especially to the general culture arounds us, which accepts these acts (when done by consenting adults) as victimless pleasures, not capital crimes. Non-logical chukim. So why is it that we must avoid these acts, even at the cost of our lives? Doesn't make sense. The tentative answer I've come up with is that this halacha is meant to help insure solid family life. Society around us is falling apart, and many people think that one of the causes is that too many children grow up without strong family values. It is merely my guess, but I can't help but suspect that this is why Hashem made Arayos so very very assur, to impress this value upon us. Even if (lo aleinu) a situation actually arises, and a person is tempted to rationalize that he can do this aveirah today and live to do mitzvos tomorrow, it is still not worth it. That's the message of the severity of this halacha. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hanktopas at gmail.com Sun Jul 19 06:59:31 2020 From: hanktopas at gmail.com (Henry Topas) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 09:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: Recently, I have heard of some shuls beginning Shabbat morning davening at Nishmat or even at Shochayn Ad. This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the same Sha'tz conclude what he started? Kol tuv, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 00:59:57 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:59:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan Message-ID: Just catching up and the message from R' Joel Rich on Sun, 24 May 2020 caught my eye. RJJ wrote: > In the case of the woman putting on a tallis without tzitzis- there > was no real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis > - ie fulfil the mitzvah (except her rabbi told her not to), so why > would you be satisfied with second best. I'm not so sure about the "no real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis" part. In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar could cause carrying in a public domain. Along those lines one could argue that a tallis may also cause one to carry in the public domain if not tied properly, or strings break off, etc. Just a thought, - Danny From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Jul 20 07:02:26 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:02:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when > we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed > by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as > the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the > same Sha'tz conclude what he started? See S"A O"C 53:3 (Shatz vs. tzibbur) https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Orach_Chayim.53.3 She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, Joel Rich From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 11:26:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:59:57AM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: > In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. > > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. ... In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! So, I'm not sure why the HM needs to invoke the risk of an aveirah. Lo zakhisi lehavin. And more to our point, the lack of berakhah doesn't seem to me to prove the mitzvah itself should be avoided because it means some risk exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but the lighting of a fire. Author: Widen Your Tent - W.B. Yeats - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From cbkaufman at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 13:58:38 2020 From: cbkaufman at gmail.com (Brent Kaufman) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:58:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 (4) Message-ID: There are actually 4 big ones that one must voluntarily give one's life rather than transgress. A person is obligated to die rather than transgress any mitzvah in the Torah if one is being forced to do so publicly during a time of shmad. The Rambam lists this, but I didn't check before writing this, for its exact reference. chaimbaruch kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 19:12:11 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 22:12:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: . I wrote: > But Avoda Zara is the sort of thing where - by definition - > the means NEVER justify the ends. There is NO situation in > which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be Kiddush > Hashem. It's a contradiction in terms. I made a typing error there. What I had intended to write was: "There is NO situation in which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be *L'Shem Shamayim*. It's a contradiction in terms." It's not difficult to imagine situations (or cite historical incidents) where someone might do an aveirah L'Shem Shamayim. But that's for the other 612. It seems to me categorically impossible for someone to do actual Avoda Zara (as opposed to merely going through the motions, which is also assur, but *possibly* not yehareg v'al yaavor) for L'Shem Shamayim reasons. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 05:41:45 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:41:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: > This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when > we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed > by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as > the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the > same Sha'tz conclude what he started? I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. E.g.: We learned in a Mishna in Brachos that if the Shat"z cannot continue, a substitute continues where he left off. More common: Aveilim often switch Shat"z at Ashrei - the 2nd one saying Kadish Tiskabal (may our prayers be accepted) even though the first one said the actual Amida that this is going on. In your case, both congregants will be saying both opening and closing Brachot - so I'm not even sure what you're asking. Kol Tuv - Danny From doniels at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 05:34:42 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:34:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> References: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB commented on my thought: > In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos > that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To > the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem > in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! That's THIS VERY Rambam. > So, I'm not sure why the HM needs to invoke the risk of an aveirah. Lo > zakhisi lehavin. > > And more to our point, the lack of berakhah doesn't seem to me to prove > the mitzvah itself should be avoided because it means some risk exists. My mistake for getting you mixed up. The HM isn't commenting on Tzitzis - that part is my "chiddush"... that there's a "good reason" why women didn't wear Tzitzis over the generations. The HM was commenting IIUC why the Rambam talks about women wearing Tzitzis but not Tefillin. I can't find the HM on Sefria, or I'd link to it. Kol Tuv - Danny From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Tue Jul 21 12:08:22 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:08:22 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan Message-ID: <000001d65f92$4e243cf0$ea6cb6d0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:59:57AM +0300 RDS wrote: > In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. > > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. And then RMB responded: <> We need to back up here. There is a fundamental machlokus in the gemora between Rabbi Yehuda (supported by Rabbi Meir), and Rabbi Yossi (supported by Rabbi Shimon) as to whether women are permitted to perform mitzvos aseh she hzman grama - from which they are exempt. Rabbi Yossi says "reshus" - ie they are allowed. Rabbi Yehuda says no, it is assur for women to perform mitzvos asseh shehazman grama. And there are two explanations given for Rabbi Yehuda forbidding women performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. The first (eg by Rashi) is of Bal Tosif. That is, if the Torah says women are exempt from performing certain mitzvos, then for them to go ahead and perform them would violate the principle of bal tosif. However, most rishonim argue that bal tosif does not make sense here, and therefore most rishonim, including those who posken like Rabbi Yehuda, do so not under the principle of bal tosif, but under a principle that can be called "halachic counter-pressure". That is, even Rabbi Yehuda did not forbid all women from doing acts that constitute mitzvos (such as sitting in a sukkah on Sukkos, which, if you follow the bal tosif principle would be ossur for a women to do), but only where there are halachic counter-pressures, and the Haagahos Maimoniyos is quoting some of the halachic counter-pressures that the rishonim discuss. As we all know, we posken (both Sephardim (via the Shulchan Aruch) and Ashkenazim (via the Rema)), like Rabbi Yossi, that women *may* perform mitzvos aseh shehazman grama, and this Rambam is one of the bases for the way the Shulchan Aruch poskens. However: a) there are a significant number of rishonim who posken like Rabbi Yehuda; and b)even within Rabbi Yossi, there are those who say that Rabbi Yossi only permits where the halachic counter-pressure is something less than a Torah prohibition. If, like the Rambam, you holds that saying a bracha sheino tzricha is a Torah violation, and you hold according to this view in Rabbi Yossi, you end up with the Rambam's position. If you follow Tosfos (Ri and Rabbanu Tam), who holds that saying a bracha sheino tzricha is merely a rabbinic prohibition, then following Rabbi Yossi t would be pushed aside in the circumstance of a woman performing a mitzvah that is a reshus. So holds the Rema. For various talks I have given on this, I have drawn up the following diagrams - I don't know if they will come out in the digest form, but I think people find them useful to understand some of the complexity. [RMB, is there some way of embedding these in the digest?] If you don't get them, I am happy to email them separately. Bottom line there are a lot of rishonim who did not hold like Rabbi Yossi, and this is reflected in, inter alia, the discussion regarding tzitzis. Because while the Tur, following his father the Rosh and the Rabbanu Tam/Ran happily permit women to make blessings over shofar and lulav, he says in Tur Orech Chaim Hilchot Tzitzit siman 17 ".And the Rambam writes that they may wrap without a blessing, and he is going in his position that explains that women are not able to bless on something from which they are exempt but Rabbanu Tam writes that they are able to bless even though they are exempt and it is better that they do not bless ..". And the Bach, picking up on this seeming contradiction says (Bach Orech Chaim Siman 17) On "And it is better that they do not bless"; There is to ask from that which he writes in siman 589 in connection with shofar that even though women are exempt they are able to blow and to bless and one should not protest. And it seems to me that it seems from here that in connection with tzitzis that it is not the custom for women to wear, and to bless, if so if a woman comes to ask ab initio if it is permitted to dress in tzitzis and to bless he should say to her that she should not bless because it is better that they should not bless given the disagreement of our rabbis but with shofar where they are already accustomed to blow and to bless they do not protest since they have on whom to rely but if they come to ask ab initio also with shofar you should say to them that they should not bless and we should rely on what was written here regarding tzitzis and this is the law [also] regarding shofar." But, it seems to me, to understand this portion, it is necessary to fully understand the depth of rishonic opposition to women performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. The Hagahios Maymoniyos was one of a number of Ashkenazi rishonim who disagreed with Rabbanu Tam/Ri/Ran and held one should posken like Rabbi Yehuda. Regards Chana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 19942 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.png Type: image/png Size: 21255 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.png Type: image/png Size: 20358 bytes Desc: not available URL: From simon.montagu at mail.gmail.com Tue Jul 21 03:40:33 2020 From: simon.montagu at mail.gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:40:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:59 PM Danny Schoemann wrote: > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. What mitzva couldn't potentially cause an aveira, including ones which women do aliba dekhulei alma? Bad timing in candle-lighting could cause hillul shabbat. On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 9:34 PM Micha Berger wrote: > In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos > that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To > the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem > in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! As I may have noted before, the general trend among Sepharadi aharonim is to follow RT against the SA and Rambam, and say that women at least can, and IIIRC davka _should_ make berachot on these mitzvot. ROY, kedarko bakodesh, insists on following Maran. From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 22 02:56:47 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:56:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?God=92s_existence?= Message-ID: Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all. I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience. It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place I?m not sure that came out as clearly as I might?ve liked but I hope you get the general idea. Thoughts? She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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 bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 22 12:57:46 2020 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:57:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A couple of points relevant to the 'big 3'. Firstly, as has been noted, they are not the only situations of yeihareig v'al yaavor. In addition to the situation of sha'as ha'shmad, the yerushalmi notes that mitzvos bein adam l'chaveiro are also YVAY. Like theft. And I believe we pasken that way. BUT that's not to diminish their uniqueness as YVAY mitzvos. They are mentioned in targum yonasan as a discrete set of YVAY mitzvos, I noticed in the last couple of weeks while doing chad targum. Although I couldn't find it again when I looked. That does mean the derivation in the Bavli is way after the din was already known, by a few hundred years at the least. And points to a much more them being a much more fundamental set of 3 with an early origin in halacha. In response to RZS's point about there being no obvious connection between them, that may well be exactly because they represent the extremes of three different branches of avoda, per the Maharal, and their only connection being that they are all archetypes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 23 08:21:33 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:21:33 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: <002001d66104$f2fb7ea0$d8f27be0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RAM wrote: In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this is the one I want to ask about.) > The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation of > Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana (danger). > Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the Mishnah, shuls > were located outside of the cities where it was not safe to be alone > at night. The Rabbis were concerned that people who came late to shul > might be left alone while finishing to daven. To give latecomers a > chance to catch up and finish davening with everyone else, Chazal > extended the davening by adding Mei'ein Sheva. <> And RAF suggested: <> However it seems to me that this does not answer RAM's question, as the point RAM makes is that Me'en Sheva is a very short additional prayer, and doesn't seem to make much difference one way or the other. Can I make a different suggestion (but again only a suggestion). I have been looking at something called Teshuvat HaGeonim HaChadashot, which, according to Bar Ilan (which is where I sourced it) was published by Simcha Emanuel in Jerusalem, 1995, from a manuscript in the Baron Gunzberg library includes previously unpublished geonic responsa, as well as the writings of early proven?al scholars. In it, in a discussion on the nature of kaddish found at siman 35, the presumably Gaonic author explains the locations of all the kaddishim and after explaining where they are in relation to Shachrit and Mincha (and why) he says ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? +?' ????? ??, ?+ ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? [???] ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??[?]? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????. " And after the blessings of reciting the shema of arvit because the prayer of arvit is reshut [Brachot 27b] and perhaps a person will go out from the synagogue after they finish the blessings of emet v?emunah and will not pray there with ten, and it will be that he will go out without kaddish." That is, there was a genuine concern that because arvit was reshut, people might come to say shema together, and then leave, hence the kaddish after shema and before shmonei esrei of arvit. Now, if that was a genuine concern, then maybe that also explains me'in sheva (especially if you understand me'in sheva as requiring, or at least being ideally, said with the community as a whole). Maybe the point is that a latecomer, given that arvit is reshut, was likely simply to say shema and its blessings and not bother to say shmone esrei at all but simply walk out. However with the incentive of saying me'in sheva together with the rest of the congregation, and with other people prepared to wait for him so that the me'en sheva would be communal, he would actually daven shmonei esrei in the presence of the minyan, so that he could then say me'en sheva with it. >Akiva Miller Kind regards Chana From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 23 09:34:09 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:34:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: <003001d6610f$17ad5ed0$47081c70$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: <> I should have pointed out that this particular teshuva was signed by Rav Avraham ben Rav Yitzchak - and given that he references "a few Geonim" and "other Geonim", later in the piece, it is more likely to be someone like Abraham ben Isaac de Narbonne (1110-1179), so more of a Rishon than a Gaon, despite the name of the compilation. Kind regards Chana From wolberg at yebo.co.za Sun Jul 26 09:36:50 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 18:36:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan 32:76 Message-ID: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> [AhS Yomi for yesterday covered OC 32:73-79. https://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi -mi] Loved the line: ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? -- ??? ??? ????? ???? ???. [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." -mi] Any comment on it? From zev at sero.name Sun Jul 26 16:10:19 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:10:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan 32:76 In-Reply-To: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> References: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> Message-ID: <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> On 26/7/20 12:36 pm, wolberg--- via Avodah wrote: > [AhS Yomi for yesterday covered OC 32:73-79. https://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi > -mi] > > Loved the line: ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? -- ??? ??? ????? ???? ???. > [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- > ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. > > [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts > about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." > -mi] > > Any comment on it? I think "yeseros" here means "superfluous", rather than merely "additional". Of course that begs the question, but I think that in general it's a statement of principle, not a rule for practice, though in this instance the AhS gives his opinion on what is superfluous. (I'd also translate "ein daas chachomim nocha meihem" less literally, as "Torah authorities do not approve of them", or even, riskily, "Daas Torah does not approve of them".) -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:50:00 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daas Chachamim Noachah Heimenu In-Reply-To: <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> References: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200727105000.GA9656@aishdas.org> In translating a Hebrew quote posted to the list, I wrote: >> [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- >> ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. >> >> [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts >> about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." >> -mi] On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 07:10:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > (I'd also translate "ein daas chachomim nocha meihem" less literally, as > "Torah authorities do not approve of them", or even, riskily, "Daas Torah > does not approve of them".) I was always taught something along the lines of your first version. I think it was R Yaakov Haber that I heard this from, but the idiom could equally have been intended to me something more like (loosely) "... isn't thinking with daas Torah". I found the argument compelling enough to try to offer both translations. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From driceman at optimum.net Mon Jul 27 07:36:27 2020 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?God=E2=80=99s_existence?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> RJR: > > Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all. > I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah > We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience. > > It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al > > In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place I haven?t read RAL?s essay (link?), but doesn?t RYhL use this idea at the beginning of the Kuzari, a generation before the Rambam? David Riceman From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Jul 27 09:04:15 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:04:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?God=E2=80=99s_existence?= In-Reply-To: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> References: , <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> Message-ID: <1E4BB098-3996-4C02-9BE1-6CA8B3672151@Segalco.com> I haven?t read RAL?s essay (link?), https://www.etzion.org.il/en/source-faith-faith-itself 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:14:27 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:14:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727201427.GC12492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 06:25:38AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R" Micha Berger wrote: >> Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't >> which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because >> there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of >> safeiq would be lehaqeil. > Safeiq "rather than" pesaq?? Can the two be differentiated? Isn't psak > *based* on safek, trying to figure out where Truth resides? Not safeiq rather than pesaq, "rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq". More reliance on safeiq deOraisa lehachmir, safeiq derabbanan lequlah -- unless efshar levareir / it's easy enough to be machmir. Of course, a baal nefesh may have a different definition of "easy enough". As opposed to looking to which shitah is stated by the gadol bekhochmah uveminyan (minyan rabbanim, rav with bigger following [looking at the Rambam or the Rosh...]), the logic of the sevara behind each possible pesaq, looking to see which pesaq was apparently accepted for how long and how broadly, hefsed meruba, kavod haberios... You know, the rules of pesaq. These latter kind of rules tend to be invoked less often than in the past. I think it comes from the Gra's position on the comparative unreality of pesaq after Rav Ashi and Ravina, taking the Rambam's "sof hora'ah" quite literally. Picked up by the Soloveitchiks, and with the popularity of Brisk among those who pasqen today... Add to that the whole concept of lomdus. Whether Brisker or other derakhim. When you value sevara much more than the other factors posqim have to balance, and you learn how to explain the sevara of all sides of a machloqes... There are fewer times the remaining rules of pesaq rise to the level of giving a clear answer. My latter two paragraphs feed into: > As I see it, it's not that we have a lack of *faith* in psak, but that > we're so confused about how it works. And especially, how it works nowadays > when there's no Sanhedrin. But we seem to disagree mostly on description rather than content: > And it carries through to psak too. Can I really ignore the minority > opinion? Without a Sanhedrin to actually discuss and vote, how can I be > sure that the other camp is wrong? ... "How can I be sure" IS a lack of faith in our ability to pasqen, as I would use the terms. Maybe the insecurity comes from a lack of surity we know how to do it right. I would still call it a lack of faith. If you don't think pesaq can be done the way the Rif, the Rambam, the Tur, the SA, the Levush, etc... did, that their precedent doesn't tell you how to decide which of the eilu va'eilu should become halakhah lemaaseh, that lack of faith in how to do pesaq has scary implications. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:19:21 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:19:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] action or results? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727201921.GD12492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:48:25AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > There are four identical quadruplets brothers, Robert, Simon, Larry and > Judah. Robert , Larry and Simon are all asymptomatic carriers of the > corona virus but Judah is not... > They all go outside to identical public events where their identities are > not known. Robert infects... > What shows up on each brothers' permanent record card in shamayim? Is > it multidimensional? Rachmana liba ba'i. Their records show each one's lack of concern for other's safety. Consequences, if they are correlated at all and some other aspect of hashgachah doesn't overwhelm this rule, megalgelim chov al yedei chayav. Which implies that who gets whom sick would at most be *indicative* of guilt for this or other deeds, not the actual thing he is guilty of. A person isn't judged for the results of their actions, or even for their actions themselves. (So, I'm denying both sides of the question in the subject line.) A person is judged "ba'asher hu sham" -- what kind of changes those decisions and actions made in themselves. I would take it for granted it's multidimensional. The person's "permanent record card" is their own soul. And the effects of their actions can improve one thing about the soul while damaging something else about it. A comparatively easy example is tact. a person can make a person that makes them more truthful, but gains that Emes at the expense of their drive for Shalom. And even without the previous paragraphs, Hashem isn't a Vatra -- the person will get the Tov that a more Emesdik soul has a beis qibbul for, and get less of the Tov that comes with losing some passion for Shalom. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:00:57 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727210057.GF12492@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: >> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when >> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed >> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as >> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the >> same Sha'tz conclude what he started? > I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. I called it an office, not the occupent. But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same idea. I have a theory why: I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a *shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:54:22 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:54:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] God's existence In-Reply-To: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> References: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20200727205422.GE12492@aishdas.org> RDR mentioned the Kuzari before I found the time to reply. I think what changed was in the discipline of philosophy. In the days of the rishonim, Philosophy was itself a kind of religion. Look at the opening paragraphs of ch. 1 of the Kuzari -- the king's survey includes a Philosopher (1:1), a Muslim, a Christian, and then the chaver. A Jewish Philosopher was a Scholasticist. Such that Rihal, even though the Kuzari is a book of philosophy as we now use the term, saw himself as anti-Philosophy. Then came the scientific method and people realizing the power and limitations of testing things empirically. The tensions between the Empiricists, who trusted these methods, and the Idealists, who wanted all knowledge to be as sound as Math, coming from self-evident postulates. And then the Kantian Revolution through to Existentialism and now Post-Modernism, etc... Philosophy less based on a confidence of being able to prove what's out there and more focused on describing the world as experienced. I argued here a few years back that this is what drove the popularity of universal hashgachah peratis. It's less a break from how rishonim understood HP than looking at a different topic. To the rishonim, a discussion of HP is all about its contrast to nature, randomness, bechirah chofshi, etc... Nowadays, the discussion of HP is about what it is we have bitachon in, how much hishatadlus do we need to invest given that what happens is decided by hashgachah... R Yehudah haLevi had a lack of faith in the idea that we can decisively prove that's really out there. That's for Greeks, who lack the more sure source of data -- mesorah. (1:13, 1:63) That mesorah part isn't very Modern in terms of the discipline of philosophy, but not believing we can ever really prove anything... Well, take this quote from 1:13: "Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved." Sounds downright Post-Modern! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Jul 28 19:19:28 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 22:19:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why did Chazal cancel shiva bc of Yom tov Message-ID: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> Many have recently written how they have missed the full traditional comforting process of shiva due to corona restrictions. That has reawakened in me the question of why did Chazal cancel shiva because of Yom tov? If the catharsis and process of shiva is so comforting and desirable for mourners, why did they take that away because of YT and not simply postpone till after YT. It's hard to say that after YT the shiva experience w be no longer necessary or needed. I saw someone suggest that "The souls of those who passed away now with abbreviated burials and shivas were so pure they ascended directly to heaven and did not require traditional mourning rituals." That is hard to hear because shiva (and YT cancelling shiva) is a rabbinic creation. Suggestions? Mordechai Cohen macohen613 at gmail.com From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 29 03:10:38 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:10:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why did Chazal cancel shiva bc of Yom tov In-Reply-To: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> References: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: That has reawakened in me the question of why did Chazal cancel shiva because of Yom tov? ====================================== As one who sat shiva at the cemetery on erev Pesach, I tried to keep in mind R'YBS's insight into true simcha as being lfnai hashem (which is what we're supposed to be on shalosh regalim). Seeing it through HKB"H's eyes it's all good (we are human and so don't experience it as such). So: She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, which will allow us all to see more clearly 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 micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:37 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 11:02:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Crazy Snakes and Dogs Message-ID: <20200730150237.GA14405@aishdas.org> We repeatedly discussed RYBS's statement that toothpaste is not ra'ui la'akhilas kelev and therefore doesn't need a hekhsher to be KLP. Not where I intended to go, but I should note that we never discussed the actual core issue -- the limits of the principle of achshevei. Since toothpaste is flavored, one could argue it does apply. RMF (IG OC 2:92), ROY (YD 2:60), the Tzitz Eliezer (10:25), says it does not apply when the flavored item isn't being eaten for the sake of the flavor. Excluding medicine -- and the same argument applies to toothpaste. The CI (OC 116:8) limits achshevei to spoiled chameitz, and not to mixtures containing chameitz. The "only" machmir about applying achshevei to medicines that I know of is the She'agas Aryeh (75). Now, back to the topic I did intent to post about.... So, the story goes (version taken from R Chaim Jachter at https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/cosmetics-and-toiletries-for-pesach-part-three-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter ): A charming anecdote that occurred in Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's Shiur at Yeshiva University in the 1970's (reported by Rav Yosef Adler and many others) is often cited in support of the common practice to be lenient. The Rav stated in Shiur that toothpaste is not Ra'ui Liachilat Kelev (unfit for canine consumption) and thus one is permitted to consume it on Pesach even if it contains Chametz. The next day in Shiur a student raised his hand and explained that he conducted an "experiment" the night before. He related that he placed toothpaste in his dog's feeding bowl to see if his dog would eat it -- and indeed, the dog ate the toothpaste!! Rav Soloveitchik simply responded, "Your dog is crazy." This story illustrates the ruling that we cited last week from Rav Soloveitchik that the standards of edibility are not determined by aberrant behavior. R Pesach Sommer recently found Tosefta Terumos 7:13, which is more famously available on Chullin 49b. It /has/ to be what RYBS was thinking of. The gemara says: Detanya: 5 [liquids] do not have [the prohibition] of gilui: brine, vinegar, oil, honey and fish gravy. Rabbi Shimon says: I saw a snake drink fish brine in Tzidon! They said to him: That [snake] was a shetaya, and one doesn't bring a proof from shotim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From hanktopas at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 20:29:43 2020 From: hanktopas at gmail.com (Henry Topas) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 23:29:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: >> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when >> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed >> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as >> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the >> same Sha'tz conclude what he started? > I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. I called it an office, not the occupent. But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same idea. I have a theory why: I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a *shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post! -Micha Shavua Tov, Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue for Kaddish Shalem? Thank you and Kol Tuv, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 02:36:36 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 12:36:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Henry Topas wrote: > > Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach > of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for > Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or > officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that > reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue > for Kaddish Shalem? What you describe is nothing I've found in the written Poskim. Where I grew up (various Yekkishe Kehiloth) the Ovel was "off the hook" when Hallel was recited. I see this being done in Yeshivishe minyonim, seemingly to "prevent" the Ovel from being Shatz for Hallel. (Also not recorded, AFAIK, except during Shiva.) So, my guess is, that since the Ovel wants to say as many Kadieshim as possible he "gets back the Omud" after Hallel - giving him one more Kaddish. This has no bearing on our discussion, it's a question (and answer) on a recent "Minhag/Hanhogo". Kol Tuv - Danny From emteitz at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 14:06:35 2020 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 17:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: Henry Topas wrote: However one looks at the office of shat"z, there is a difference between chazaras hashat"z and the rest of davening. For everything else, he is essentially a pacer, keeping everyone at the same point in davening, and the leader, in terms of kaddish and borchu. For the amidah, he is definitely a shaliach, whose role it is to be motzi those who cannot themselves daven. It would be possible theoretically not to have a shat"z, having all daven together, and then having one person who, at the appropriate times, would say kaddish and borchu. Chazaras hashat"z, however, must obviously have a shat"z. On days when Hallel is said, it is not a part of chazaras hashat"z; it is, in essence said *during *the chazara, after which the chazara is completed by saying kaddish shalem, which *is* a part of the chazara. (Hallel is in the same category as slichos on fast days, which was originally said during the shat"z's saying the bracha of Slach lanu. Then, too, I believe that someone other than the shat'"z could have led the slichos while the shat"z remained at the amud.) That the aveil should not lead Hallel, but should return for the kaddish because it is a part of the Amidah, is spelled out in the Mishna Brura (581:7). This leads to questioning the practice, when there is more than one aveil, of switching ba'alei tfila at Ashrei-Uva l'Tzion. There are some who object to the practice for that very reason, but apparently it is in the same category as allowing kaddish to be said by more than one person at a time: a concession to darkei shalom in a highly emotional setting. That the aveil not lead Hallel is the opinion of the overwhelming majority. The Mishna Brura loc.cit. brings the apparent opinion of the GR"A who goes even further, that the aveil not lead the entire Shacharis. The MB also cites, in the Biur Halacha in Siman 132, that there are those who bar the aveil from the amud on any day, other than erev Yom Kippur, that Lamnatzeiach is not said -- and does not limit it just to Shacharis on those days. (This is the minhag in my community.) Incidentally, in parts of Europe and in some shuls in EY, there is no shat"z for psukei d'zimra. The amud is unmanned until Yishtabach. If no one need be there, then certainly where there is one, there is no problem in replacing him for Yishtabach. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolberg at yebo.co.za Wed Aug 5 08:00:26 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 17:00:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Censorship in Aruch HaShulchan Message-ID: <014701d66b39$296ebf40$7c4c3dc0$@yebo.co.za> In 39:3, the AH writes: ger (beyamim kadmonim). This was obviously added for the gov censor, similar to Aruch HaShulchan ChM 388:7. Why do we not find the same in MB? Actually, AH OC was written after the same section in MB. Was the political climate in Novardok and Radin so different? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 10 00:52:25 2020 From: eliturkel at mail.gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:52:25 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potato chips and french fries Message-ID: A nice article on the various opinions of bishul akum for french fries and potato chips https://vosizneias.com/2020/08/10/chareidi-potato-chips-versus-regular-chips/ -- Eli Turkel From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 13:42:35 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:42:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Chaim Brisker on his 102nd Yahrzeit Message-ID: <20200811204234.GA9159@aishdas.org> R Elinatan Kupferburg posted this today on Facebook, lekhavod RCB's 102nd yahrzeit (21 Av). Translitarations mine, "q"s and all. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Today is the yahrzeit of [Maran shel kol Benei Yisrael, Rabbeinu Chaim haLevi,] R. Chaim Soloveitchik. It is far beyond this post, or this site, to capture any of the towering significance of Rabbeinu. For that, there's only one thing to do. You have to learn R. Chaim. You sit for hours poring over a sugya without R. Chaim, only to open the sefer and have R. Chaim, with his penetrating, elegant brilliance guide you through the depths of the sea of Talmud. It's as if you were overhearing snippets of a conversation without knowing the topic and then someone revealed it to you and now everything you heard suddenly falls into place. But I do want to make a couple of points about R. Chaim's legacy. Perhaps the most common metonym used to describe or exemplify what is referred to as "the Brisker method," is the cheftza/gavra distinction, often compared to the in rem/in personam legal distinction, though the two are not entirely analogous. It's part of a broader tendency to describe or teach "the Brisker method" by means of a few templatic distinctions: internal/external, intrinsic/accidental, action/result and so on, and has recently been reinforced by books or pamphlets which attempt to do the same. Unfortunately, not only are these gross simplifications and reductions, they entirely obscure what R. Chaim was actually doing, replace it with a different method of study (albeit one that is more prominent in some of his students, notably R. Elchonon Wasserman) and thereby miss his genius. The halakhic discourse, the lomdus, that pervades the Brisk Yeshiva that grew out of the study group around his son R. Velvel (the Brisker Rav) or the other yeshivas it birthed (including BMG), is dissimilar to this perception. 1. The words [cheftza] and [gavra] do not ever appear anywhere in the same piece in [Chiddushei Rabbeinu Chaim haLevi]!! Yes, really. (Except once in [Mekhilah 22:17,] when [gavra] is a quote from the Gemara, i.e. [hahu gavra]). There's a very good reason for that. Because making templatic distinctions is entirely different than what R. Chaim was doing. R. Chaim was elucidating the concepts that underlie and inform halakhic discourse. What is nature of a legal document? What type of obligation is the command is rid chametz? How does a blemish render an animal unfit for sacrifice? Under which mitzva is this prohibition included? R. Chaim's success is defined by precision of conceptual description, which is opposed to templatic rigidity. The only time that [gavra / cheftza] is actually widely used is in Nedarim 2b, in the distinction between vows and oaths, since there the distinction literally is the locus of the prohibition (vows designate an object as forbidden, oaths compel a person to act in a certain way). Often his discussion is not remotely similar to any of the popular "chakiras." For example, the section of the MT that gets the most attention in R. Chaim is the recondite [Hilkhos Tum'as Meis,] in which the pedestrian templates fail. Distinction is a helpful tool in the art of clarity and the halakhic world is composed of human agents and non-human objects, so parts of his discourse may approximate the infamous [gavra / cheftza] but it is by no means central or representative. To be fair, the templatic perception captures certain aspects of some of his chiddushim, and it does communicate the notion of underlying dyadic conceptual distinctions, but I wonder about its ultimate efficacy. 2. The distinctions that approximate [gavra / cheftza] are much older than R. Chaim. Just to give a few examples: - Rivash (Shut 98) extends the gemara's analysis in Nedarim to all prohibitions. - Rid (Eiruvin 48a) uses it describe the prohibition of transporting an object 4 amos in the public domain on Shabbos. - Chasam Sofer (Chullin 115b) uses it to distinguish different types of prohibitions. - Beis Halevi (Shut 3:51 - R. Chaim's father) uses it to explain the nature of the mitzva to eat korbanos. In a broader sense, this type of analysis can be found most acutely in (to give a few examples, moving backwords) Minchas Chinuch, R. Akiva Eiger, the works of R. Aryeh Leib Heller and R. Yaakov Lorberbaum, Peri Megadim, and, most strikingly, by R. Judah Rosanes, whose [Mishneh laMelekh] and [Parashas Derakhim,] two centuries ahead of their time, prefigured much of the Brisker Torah. Of course, the Gemara and Rishonim (Rashi and Meiri come to mind) are not absent of this lomdus either. A recent terminological case from Daf Yomi: take the discussion about perforating an old hole in a wine barrel on Shabbos 146b, where Rashi describes the halakhic crux as whether or not [paqa sheim 'pesach' mineih.] 3. R. Chaim did a lot of things. - He tightened a terminology. - He sharpened the analysis of halakhic concepts. - He displayed a new way of visualizing a sugya and working through it. - He identified the conceptual systematization that forms the substructure of the Mishneh Torah. - He developed a proto-philosophy of halakhic hermeneutics. - He opened the door for gaonim like R. Shimon Shkop to take analysis in a different direction. - By shifting the backdrop from practical halakha to halakha itself, he enabled us to see halakhic concepts not only as useful for determining practice, but as a way through which to view and interact with the world. Each of these deserves a sustained, independent analysis to identify the existing terminologies and approaches that R. Chaim drew on, and the extent of his own innovative prowess. Most powerfully though, he forever changed the halakhic consciousness. Conceptual analysis is now an inexorable part of the talmudic arsenal. Any advanced student of traditional Gemara who sits down to learn has been sensitized to the possibility of a conceptual distinction at play, even if they have no intention of using what they consider "the Brisker method." For some, R. Chaim's thought is so overwhelming that one can never look at Gemara differently again. But I might venture to say that its power lies in the recognition that even if someone does not walk down the path R. Chaim cleared, then that is precisely what they are doing: not learning like R. Chaim. R. Chaim fundamentally defined the contours of halakhic thought, and we are all in his debt. [Ki gadol sheim avinu beYisrael, ve'or Toraso male'ah teiveil -- misof ha'olam ad sofo mamash, umi zeh milomedei Sorah bedoreinu asher lo zarach alav or shimsho venogah Soraso.] From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Aug 11 14:37:14 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:37:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin Message-ID: If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? 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 zev at sero.name Wed Aug 12 08:07:36 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:07:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/8/20 5:37 pm, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another?s birchat hanehenin > and then did not eat, is it a bracha l?vatala for him? I don't see how it can be. The bracha had effect for the person who said it, so it was not wasted. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:23:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:23:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200812202354.GA10738@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 09:37:14PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin > and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? Berakhah levatalah sounds like a description of the "cheftza" of the berakhah. Not gavra-specific. And what would be levatalah, the mevoreikh's kavvanah to be motzi him? Safeiq berakhos lehaqeil is sometimes explained as safeiq deOraisa lechumerah where the deOraisa is sheim Hashem lashav. Along those lines, one could theorize that as long as the sheim wasn't said lashav, it's not a berakhah levatalah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals http://www.aishdas.org/asp is not as important as Author: Widen Your Tent what you become by achieving your goals. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Henry David Thoreau From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Sun Aug 16 08:51:59 2020 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 11:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Business with an Akum Message-ID: One is not permitted to do any kind of business with an Akum (idol-worshipper) on the day of their festival (nor 3 days prior in the Land of Israel) - Rambam Hil. Avodah Zara Ch. 9, Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 148.1. Question - Today, if I know a shop owner is a religious Xian, am I allowed to shop there on Sunday? Or if I know he is a religious Hindu, do I need to mark my calendar with all of the Hindu festivals and avoid his shop on those days? What about a traditional Chinese person on Chinese New Year? Or a Catholic on All Souls Day? If so, is there any halachic literature that lists all of the dates currently forbidden? (I?m also not allowed to sell to him on his holidays, and if I do (in error), I?m not allowed to enjoy the profits of that sale.) Alexander Seinfeld From joelirarich at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 03:47:26 2020 From: joelirarich at gmail.com (Joel Rich) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 06:47:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat hamazon Message-ID: <8FD081BF-3F42-460C-BE16-588F69071B09@gmail.com> A group of people are having Shabbos meal together in the dining room. They all get up to clear the main course dishes and bring them into the kitchen. The dessert flatware and glasses remain on the table Must they say birchat hamazon immediately upon return to the table? Kt Joel rich From micha at aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 09:00:38 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 12:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re'eih vs Shema Message-ID: <20200816160038.GA25978@aishdas.org> Because we say the words from Va'eschanan multiple times a day, I have heard (pun intended, sadly) a lot about shema when it means something more than the stimulation of neurons in my inner ear. Like the English word "listen", "shema" connotes paying attention, obeying ("eiqev asher shamata beQoli"), etc... So, what do we get from the use of "re'eih", as in the title of this week's parashah? In the past couple of days, I cam up with a theory about the difference between shemi'ah and re'iyah, but want to vet it with the chevrah. Shema introduces a theological fact we can only accept in the abstract. We don't even fully understand how One, Indivisible and Unique Hashem is. We are told to accept ol malkhus Shamayim on this basis, but the fact itself is one we can apprehend, not experience. Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite different than an abstract truth. (This seems to be consistent with "ein domeh shemi'ah lere'iyah". "Re'iyah" is something I can know first-hand.) Ta chazi in the bavli seems to also fit this pattern: Berakhos 58a: Rav Sheishes says to a min, "ta chazi" that I am brighter than you, proceding to show he figured out when the king would come. But then, the point was made at the beginning ot the story that R Sheishes was blind, so ht emay have been using the phrase pointed. Eiruvin 6b: ta chazi that the gates of Neharda'ah couldn't be locked. (And thus Shemu'el doesn't require they be locked in order to permit carrying.) Etc... All cases of "go and check for yourself". Nothing at all like "ta shema", which introduces learning a teaching. And of course "puq chazi". But in the Yerushalmi and the Zohar, "ta chazi" is used the way "ta shema" is in Bavel. So, maybe I am just reading too much into Bavli idiom. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a http://www.aishdas.org/asp person is to remain asleep and untamed." Author: Widen Your Tent - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From kbloom at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 14:30:40 2020 From: kbloom at gmail.com (Ken Bloom) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:30:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? Message-ID: Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Aug 17 15:37:49 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 22:37:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Dialectics? Message-ID: An important caveat (IMHO) from R' A Lebowitz to a number of shiurim from diverse speakers: Me-....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y, and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y? R' AL-I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just a helpful way to contextualize the issues I'm still thinking there's another paradigm shift coming, interested in hearing from others. 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 doniels at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 04:55:45 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:55:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > From: "Rich, Joel" > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3 (excuse the Hebrew for the ????? crowd) - translation from Sefaria (after removing a Chumra not in the original): ????? ????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ?????????, ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ?????????????, ???? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???????. "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi shebeirach [a blessing for those who fast on these days] and you intended to fast, this is sufficient, and no other form of acceptance is needed. " ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query. Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of getting the best of both worlds. Kol Tuv - Danny From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Aug 18 05:43:47 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:43:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query. Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of getting the best of both worlds. ============================================== When I learned this with my chavruta a few months back my comment was - I'd love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - machshava balma (random thought?) which has no halachic significance, amira (specific oral articulation) which is completely binding and amen/specific machshava(really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat indeterminate (not welcome in a brisker world?) 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 doniels at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 05:03:54 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:03:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Re'eih vs Shema In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMB reminded me of a vort I heard and said over at this week's Shabbos table. The opening word of the Sedra - Re'eih - is seemingly superfluous. "I present you today with [the ability to choose between] blessing or curse". What does "Look! I present you...." add? The answer was exactly as RMB proposed: > Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the > world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite > different than an abstract truth. We need to look around and see how choice and its consequences are built into the creation. Kol Tuv - Danny From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Aug 18 05:54:11 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 08:54:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. looking for sources and current custom Message-ID: <015401d6755e$aba2ff10$02e8fd30$@touchlogic.com> #! ... May a women uncover her hair in private? Halachah addresses public, semipublic, and private settings: Public: The Torah states that a woman must completely cover her hair in a public place. Some opinions state that under a tefach (a handbreadth, about three inches total) of hair may show. Semipublic: In a semipublic place, one opinion states that even if men are not usually found there, a married woman must cover her hair. When a woman covers her hair, this brings much blessing into the home Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory...." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required." Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? #2 https://www.yoatzot.org/questions-and-answers/1910/ Question: Does a woman have to cover her hair in front of her brothers? Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the presence of your father, husband and son. Where it is customary and not considered offensive, a woman may uncover her hair in front of her brother in the privacy of her own home. Is this leniency known/relied upon? Is this what people are doing out there today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 17:51:37 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:51:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200819005137.GB6547@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 02:55:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote: > I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3... > "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday > following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi > shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient... > "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you > may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." > This last line is -- in my mind -- parallel to your query. > Seems that answering Amen -- even with intention -- is one way of > getting the best of both worlds. I think the best of both worlds may only because you said amein to blessing the fasters, and not "me too" to someone's pledge to fast. There is mental acceptance during a related verbal act. Not a verbal acceptance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but the lighting of a fire. Author: Widen Your Tent - W.B. Yeats - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 17:48:02 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:48:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Dialectics? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200819004802.GA6547@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:37:49PM +0000, Joel Rich wrote: > Me- >> ....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I >> just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y, >> and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean >> choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y? > R' AL[ebowitz]- >> I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just >> a helpful way to contextualize the issues When discussing Brisker vs Telzher derakhim, everyone focuses on "Vus?" vs "Fahr vus?" (What? vs Why?) But another major different is R' Shimon's heavy use of the concept of hitztarfus -- the idea that a halakhah can be caused by the convergence of multiple factors. >From Widen Your Tent (by me), sec. 6.3: But there is a second distinction: Rav Chaim would explain an apparent contradiction by finding "the chiluk," the distinction between two cases that we initially thought ought to be the same, or the distinction between the viewpoints in two sides of a dispute. Rav Chaim's is a reductionist approach to analyzing a topic; it teaches how to understand something by identifying and understanding each of its parts. This methodology is suited for identifying "the cause" of a law. Rav Shimon also invokes hitztarfus, fusion or connectedness. It allows us to better ask, once we know the parts, how do they combine and interact to produce the given result? From this vantage point, rather than looking for a single cause, we can see that a given ruling can come from the way in which many halachic causes combine. Suppose we were tasked to do analysis to find out why some accident happened. For example: Why did David hurt his foot? Because a paint can fell on it. Why did the can fall? Because someone else accidentally knocked it off its shelf. Why did he knock it off the shelf? Because his nose itched, and he lifted his hand to scratch it, and also because the shelf wasn't on its brackets correctly and wobbled a bit. However, it's equally true that he hurt his foot because even though he usually wears iron-toed hiking boots, he chose not to wear them that that day. And why did he not wear his boots? Because when he was looking for something to put on his feet, someone else had turned on the light in another room, which changed his train of thought. And so on. Every event has many causes, each of which in turn has its own many causes. Rarely does an event only have one cause. We get used to identifying "the cause" of something. I would instead suggest that every event is like "the perfect storm"; each one has combinations of factors that come to a head at the same point. Similarly, Rav Shimon saw no reason to assume that it takes one cause to create an obligation or prohibition, rather than a combination of them. Which I then relate to R Shimon's approach to chessed as a widening of one's "ani" to include others. (The way we naturally have little problem giving to our children, because in a sense, they're "us".) I also use the difference between the focus on reductionism vs interconnectedness to explain a structural difference between Aristo's books and the Mishnah. WHich may be more relevant to the point: This difference between Semitic and Yefetic perspectives can be seen by contrasting the style of Aristotle with that of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Aristotle catalogues. He divides a subject into subtopics, and those subtopics even further, until one is down to the individual fact. Greek thought was focused on reductionism. To understand a phenomenon, break it down into smaller pieces and try to understand each piece. This is typical of the Yefetic perspective. That reductionism stands in contrast to the way Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi redacted the first Mishnah. The beginning of all of Mishnah could have said outright that Rabbi Eliezer ruled that the time for saying the evening Shema is from sunset and for the first third of the night. This is the way United States legal codes are arranged divided and subdivided into law, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, clauses, and items, with an effort to minimize cross-references. Instead the first Mishnah makes its point by invoking the priesthood, purity, and the night shifts in the Temple, "from the time Kohanim [who went to the mikvah to be purified during the prior day] may enter to eat their terumah until the end of the first shift." It describes the start and end times for the mitzvah using referents that one wouldn't normally assume when starting study. This is not to confuse the issue or needlessly close study from non-initiates, but because the key to understanding one mitzvah necessarily includes its connections to everything else. The proper time to say Shema cannot be understood without that context. The task Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi set out to accomplish with the Mishnah was not to explain the rationales of the halachah, and therefore the Mishnah spells out this holistic understanding. We are left not knowing why the rules of when Kohanim who needed the mikvah may eat terumah or the time the first shift in the Beis Hamikdash ended add meaning to the time span in which the nighttime Shema may be said. But the Mishnah does record the law in memorizable form, and apparently that includes helping us remember the halachah by association to the other halachos it relates to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur http://www.aishdas.org/asp with the proper intent than to fast on Yom Author: Widen Your Tent Kippur with that intent. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 12:42:04 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Limits of Parshanut Message-ID: <20200820194204.GA9194@aishdas.org> Parshanut doesn't have rules of pesaq. Nothing ever ends an opinion (lifsoq) once it is derived. So, those 98 ways become 9,604 ways, and then 941,192 ways as each interpretation gets its 98 interpretations. And then we have cases where those who pursue peshat -- Rashbam, IE, most famously -- give a peshat in the pasuq which they acknowledge runs against Chazal. But they feel Chazal weren't working bederekh peshat. (And the Rashbam is clear that he doesn't believe Chazal were wrong, or that anything he says about the pasuq has halachic signicance. E.g. see his comments on "vayhi erev, vayhi boqer".) But, procedurally, there still has to be rules for what kind of interpretation is valid and what aren't. I cannot believe that people can just make stuff up, and if fits a linguistic oddity of the text or a wording in some source of Chazal it's necessarily Torah. I don't know what the limits are. All I know is the limits of my own comfort zone. *To me*, "toras Hashem temimah" means that if I have a theory of how to understand something aggadic -- theology, mussar or parshanut -- it must be driven by material internal to the existing body Torah. If I am forced to an an entirely new understanding that no one proposed before to answer a scientific question, I would prefer leaving the question tabled, teiqu, than to run with this kind of innovation. To me, following a tendency I heard around YU from R YB Soloveitchik's students (my own rebbe, R Dovid, was yet more conservative), this is related to the difference between chiddush and shinui. "There is no beis medrash without chiddush" because learning Torah means extrapolating new points from the existing data. Extrapolation from and interpolation between existing Torah "data points" is chiddush. Shinui is innovation driven by something other than Torah. I am not sure if RYBS would say that in the context of parshanut in particular or not. As I said, as this point we're only discussing the not-that-relevant topic of "Micha's comfort zone". Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... http://www.aishdas.org/asp ... but you're the pilot. Author: Widen Your Tent - R' Zelig Pliskin - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 13:27:15 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:27:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vaccine Trials in Halakhah Message-ID: <20200820202715.GA32236@aishdas.org> Given the need for CoVID-19 vaccine challenge trials, I heard a number of podcasts on the topics of testing or volunteering to be a test subject for an experimental cure. But, it's hard to get people who are reading an email digest to take time for an audio. So, here's a link to something in text. https://thelehrhaus.com/timely-thoughts/signing-up-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-trial Here's the halachic section of the paper, minus all set-up and general ethics discussion. Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; http://www.aishdas.org/asp Experience comes from bad decisions. Author: Widen Your Tent - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF The Lehrhaus Signing Up for a COVID-19 Vaccine Trial By Sharon Galper Grossman and Shamai Grossman August 18, 2020 ... Undergoing Dangerous Medical Procedures in Halakhah Halakhah's approach to dangerous medical procedures begins with Avodah Zara 27b, which permits a hayei sha'ah - a sick individual with a limited time to live - to seek the care of a pagan doctor, because while we worry that a Jew-hating doctor might kill the Jewish patient, he might also effect a long-term cure. However, if the sick individual is unlikely to die, he may not turn to the pagan. The Gemara's explanation as to why we permit the hayei sha'ah to risk his brief remaining time alive is, "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" - we are not concerned about a risk to a short life because the pagan doctor might cure him. The Gemara derives this principle from the dilemma of the four lepers in II Kings 7:3-8. Banished from their city, which was struck by famine, they faced starvation. They saw a camp of Arameans possessing food, and were confronted by the following dilemma. If they were to enter the camp, the Arameans might kill them, yet they might feed them. Preferring possible immediate death from capture to certain subsequent death from starvation, the lepers entered the camp. There they discovered an abundance of food and survived. Tosafot (s.v. le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan) questions the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan." Doesn't Yoma 65a's permission to move stones on Shabbat to search for a hayei sha'ah buried underneath the rubble imply that we value even the briefest survival? Tosafot answers that in both cases we act in the best interest of the patient, rejecting certain death for an uncertainty that might prolong life. Thus, in Avodah Zarah, we disregard hayei sha'ah because otherwise the patient will surely die. In Yoma, we desecrate Shabbat for the hayei sha'ah because if we do not remove the stones, he will also certainly die. Based on Avodah Zara 27b and the story of the lepers, Shulhan Arukh Yoreh De'ah 155:1 codifies the principal "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan," permitting a hayei sha'ah to incur the risk of death at the hands of a pagan doctor in the hope of a long-term cure. Numerous modern poskim[7] rule that a hayei sha'ah may undergo a risky medical procedure if it offers the chance of a long-term cure. Shevut Ya'akov 3:75 explains, "Since the patient will certainly die, we push off the certainty of death and opt for the possibility of cure." One source, however, seems to prohibit the hayei sha'ah from undergoing dangerous medical treatment. Sefer Hasidim 467 describes a special herb remedy with the potential to kill or cure within days of use, accusing the women who prepared it of shortening the lives of their patients. One might interpret his denunciation as a rejection of the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan." Orhot Hayyim, Orah Hayyim 328:10 dismisses this interpretation, explaining that Sefer Hasidim only prohibits the risky remedy because there is an alternative safe treatment. He argues that in the absence of an effective alternative even Sefer Hasidim would accept the risk. Applied to our case ,the absence of an effective cure for COVID-19 might justify engaging in a risky process to find a cure. Does the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" permit healthy volunteers like Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial that injects half of the participants with a vaccine of uncertain benefit, exposing them to a lethal virus? To answer this question, we must determine if hayei sha'ah applies to healthy volunteers who do not face the risk of immediate death, the level of medical risk one may incur to achieve hayei olam (long-term cure), and the level of benefit required to justify the assumption of such risk. In addition, we must establish whether the volunteers may endanger themselves, in the absence of any personal gain, purely for the benefit of others, and whether this principle applies to experimental therapies where the benefit of treatment is unclear. Finally, if Halakhah permits participation, is one obligated to volunteer? Defining Hayei Sha'ah The discussion permitting dangerous medical treatment assumed that the individual had the status of hayei sha'ah - a terminal illness with a limited time to live. Can we interpret hayei sha'ah more broadly, and can we apply this understanding to human vaccine challenge trials involving healthy volunteers? Rishonim and early Aharonim do not define hayei sha'ah precisely. Their interpretation of the term ranges from a life expectancy as short as one to two days to longer than a year (see Table 1). Though these poskim debate the exact duration of life required to satisfy the halakhic definition of hayei sha'ah, they view a hayei sha'ah as an individual with an illness that compromises his life expectancy. At first glance, these poskim would not classify Sam, a healthy young volunteer, as a hayei sha'ah. However, Tiferet Yisrael Yoma, Yakhin 8:3, expands the definition, permitting a healthy individual to undergo smallpox vaccination, which causes death in one in 1,000 individuals, to attain long-term immunity. He dismisses the small risk of immediate death from vaccination so as to prevent future lethal infections and broadens the definition of hayei sha'ah to include situations where the cause of death is not present, but is only a statistical possibility. He bases this ruling on Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which, citing the Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, obligates a person to place himself in a possible danger to save his friend from a certain danger. So for example, if someone sees his friend drowning in the sea, he must jump in to save him though he risks drowning during his attempted rescue. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if a bystander is obligated to incur possible risk to rescue his drowning friend from a possible danger, a healthy individual may accept possible immediate peril to save himself from a possible future danger. Rabbi J.D. Bleich applies Tiferet Yisrael's definition of hayei sha'ah to healthy carriers of the BRCA mutation who act to reduce their high risk of cancer by opting for prophylactic surgery.[8] Though the cancer has not yet developed, they may incur the immediate risk of surgery to increase their life expectancy.[9] Even if we consider a genetic predisposition or a statistical probability a present danger, it is unlikely that unafflicted carriers of such a mutation will die within twelve months. By permitting a healthy individual to assume a one in 1,000 risk of immediate death to prevent a future lethal smallpox infection, Tiferet Yisrael suggests that Halakhah recognizes the importance of disease prevention, equating it with treatments for active life-threatening disease. His halakhic analysis and assessment might permit a healthy volunteer such as Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial to achieve immunity from COVID-19. However, such a trial involves substantial risk without proven benefits. In addition, because Tiferet Yisrael bases his position on the Yerushalmi which obligates an individual to endanger himself to save someone who faces certain danger, Tiferet Yisrael might even allow Sam to participate in the absence of any personal benefit, for pure altruism to save humanity. Defining a Permissible Level of Risk Aharonim debate the exact level of risk the hayei sha'ah may incur. Ahiezer 2:16:6 cites Mishnat Hakhamim to permit a dangerous treatment for a safek shakul - a risk of death less than or equal to 50%. If the risk of death exceeds 50%, the hayei sha'ah may not receive the treatment. This is also the opinion of Tzitz Elieze r 10:25:5:5. If the majority of physicians endorse treatment, Ahiezer permits a risk greater than 50% and does not define the upper limit of permitted risk. Because any COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial would receive the prior approval of an overseeing body of physicians, Ahiezer might permit participation for a risk higher than 50%. Beit David Yoreh De'ah II:340 permits a hayei sha'ah to receive a treatment that causes death in 999 out of 1,000 patients. In 1961, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58, permitted a treatment in which the odds were more than 50% that it would cause death. However, in 1972 (Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 3:36), he modified his position, permitting only a safek shakul. He concludes that a hayei sha'ah who seeks medical treatment with a greater than 50% risk of death may rely on the more lenient position of Ahiezer and receive the dangerous therapy. How does Sam's participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial compare to the risks that these poskim cite? They address situations where the person is terminally ill and faces imminent death, but do not define the level of risk a healthy individual may incur. However, Tiferet Yisrael permits a healthy individual to undergo vaccination against smallpox with a risk of death of one in 1,000. For all adults age 20-29 infected with COVID-19, including those with comorbidities, virologists estimate a 1.1% risk of complications requiring hospitalization and 0.03% risk of death,[10] an approximation that might either overestimate or underestimate Sam's true risk. Sam, who suffers no comorbidities, might be at the low end of the participation risk. Furthermore, because Sam lives in an area with a large number of COVID-19 cases, he is already at high risk of infection; participation only minimally increases this. Should he become infected, he will receive state-of-the-art care, which might reduce his complications. In addition, if researchers identify an effective treatment, that treatment would further diminish his participation risk. With appropriate risk minimization (e.g., careful titration of viral dose, early diagnosis, and optimal medical care), Sam might face little, if any, additional risk related to experimental infection. Alternatively, Sam's risk of death might be higher than estimated because the vaccine or the strain of virus injected might increase the severity of infection or the incidence of lasting harm. In addition, because the virus is so new and follow-up of those infected limited, the long-term risks of COVID-19 infection are unknown and might be greater than anticipated. Even if Sam's risk from participating is higher than estimated, his danger of death is still well below the 50% threshold that the above poskim use and the 0.1% risk that Tifferet Yisrael permits for healthy individuals undergoing smallpox vaccination. Definition of Hayei Olam - What Benefits Justify Risk? The above discussion, which explored a hayei sha'ah's acceptable level of risk with regard to medical treatments, assumed that the goal of treatment is to achieve hayei olam, a long-term cure. Poskim disagree about whether one may undergo a dangerous therapy for any other purpose, such as prolonging life in the absence of a complete recovery or the relief of pain and symptoms. Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58 and 3:36 prohibits risky treatment that merely prolongs life in the absence of complete recovery. Rav Bleich offers a different perspective.[11] Quoting Ramban's Torat ha-Adam,[12] which derives from the phrase, "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" the principle that "we are not concerned with possible [loss of] hayei sha'ah in the face of more life (hayei tuva)," Rav Bleich interprets "hayei tuva" to mean more life, and concludes that Ramban would permit dangerous medical treatment to achieve a longer period of hayei sha'ah, even in the absence of a cure. Iggerot Moshe Yore De'ah II:36 prohibits dangerous treatment for pain relief alone. Rav Yaakov Emden, Mor u-Kezi'ah 328, writes that surgery for pain relief is not "hutar le-gamrei," categorically permitted, suggesting that under specific circumstances it might be allowed. Tzitz Eliezer 13:87 permits morphine for a dying patient, although morphine might hasten his death, because nothing torments man more than intractable pain. Thus, Tzitz Eliezer would argue, a hayei sha'ah may undergo dangerous treatment not just to achieve hayei olam but also to achieve hayei tuva, longer life or pain relief. What is the benefit to Sam of participating in the human vaccine challenge trial? Will participation give him hayei olam, hayei tuva, or some other non-life prolonging benefit? First, vaccination itself or infection with or without vaccination might yield hayei olam -- a long-term cure and permanent immunity to COVID-19, akin to Tiferet Yisrael's smallpox vaccine. However, it is possible that the vaccine or infection will only provide temporary immunity. Here, participation will not achieve hayei olam, but only hayei tuva, but revaccination to boost his immunity could yield hayei olam. Second, because Sam lives in a high-infection zone, he faces a real risk of becoming infected even if he does not participate. Participation guarantees Sam priority in the allocation of medical resources and the best medical care should he become infected. By participating, Sam decreases his risk of complications and death from infection. Better care could improve his medical outcome and increase his chances of surviving COVID-19, thus facilitating hayei olam. Furthermore, if he develops immunity, he can no longer infect his family. The possibility of achieving long-term or short-term immunity to COVID-19, better treatment if infected, and relieving anxiety over infecting others are direct benefits to Sam for participating in the trial. However, it is possible that participation will provide no benefit, direct or indirect, to Sam. Sam's ultimate motivation for participation, like that of the thousands of volunteers who have come forward to participate in these trials, is altruism, helping to discover an effective vaccine that will save millions of lives. May one undergo a dangerous treatment in order to save others? Incurring Risk to Save Others Citing Talmud Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426 obligates one to place himself in a possible danger to save the life of someone facing certain danger. In Shulhan Arukh, Rav Yosef Karo and Rama omit this requirement. Sema Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 explains that Shulhan Arukh and Rama follow Rambam, Rif, Rosh, and Tur, who also omit this obligation. Pithei Teshuvah Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 suggests that they omitted this obligation because it contradicts Talmud Bavli (Niddah 61a and Sanhedrin 73a) and Jewish law typically follows Talmud Bavli. Radbaz 3:627 (53) was asked if a foreign government demands that a Jew undergo removal of a limb, a procedure presumed not to endanger his life, to save the life of another Jew, may one do so. He answers that one who consents acts with midat hasidut, a degree of piety, but if amputation will endanger his life, he is a hasid shoteh, acting illogically by violating the commandment va-hai bahem (which Sanhedrin 74a understands to mean that mitzvot are to live by and not die by). Similarly, in in Radbaz 5 Lilshonot ha-Rambam 1:582 (218), he addresses whether one is obligated to save the life of a fellow Jew, he explains that if the rescuer faces a safek mukhra - a certain danger - he has no obligation to act. But if the odds are greater that he will save his friend without endangering himself, failure to rescue transgresses lo ta'amod al dam rei'ekha. Tiferet Yisrael bases his teshuvah permitting a healthy volunteer to undergo smallpox vaccination on Talmud Yerushalmi and Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which obligate a person to place himself in danger to save a drowning friend. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if one may endanger himself to rescue his friend from danger, he may certainly assume risk of vaccination to save himself and achieve long-term immunity. In fact, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:174:4 permits one to accept a possible danger if it will save someone else from a definite danger. Tzitz Eliezer 13:101 rules that one may participate in experimental therapy and donate blood to benefit others if physicians determine that participation is risk-free. We consider such participation a mitzvah. In this situation, however, physicians cannot determine the risk of Sam's participating in the human vaccine trial and cannot claim that the trial is without risk. In Yehaveh Da'at 3:84, Rav Ovadia Yosef prohibits treatment with a risk greater than 50% based on Radbaz's classification of a rescuer who endangers himself for a safek shakul as a hasid shoteh. Rav Ovadia Yosef states that the majority of Aharonim, including Eliyah Rabba 328:8, Netziv ha-Emek She'eilah Re'eh 147:4, Aruh Ha-shulkhan 426, Mishpat Kohen 143-2, Heikhal Yitzhak Orah Hayyim 3, and Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 1:145, support this position. However, he permits kidney donation and even considers it a mitzvah, because the risk to the donor is low; according to the physicians with whom he consulted, 99% of donors recover fully from the operation. Interestingly, like Rav Ovadia Yosef, ethicists point to kidney donation as a model for determining the level of risk one may accept to benefit others[13,14] and consider the risk of death from participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial equivalent to the risk of death from kidney donation.[15] Because the risk of death from participating in this trial is significantly less than 50% and is comparable to the risk of kidney donation, Halakhah would seem to permit Sam's altruistic enrollment to save others from certain death from the virus. In fact, Sam's participation, which has the potential to save not just one life, like a kidney donor, but millions, is not only permitted but meritorious. One might even argue that Sam is obligated to participate based on lo ta'amod al dam rei'ekha. Rav Asher Weiss in Minhat Asher 3:122 cites Ta'anit 18b as proof that an individual may endanger himself to save the community, and in doing so performs a great mitzvah. According to Rashi, Turyanus, a Roman official, accused the Jews of murdering the emperor's daughter. He threatened mass execution unless the guilty party confessed. To save the community, Lilianus and Pappus, falsely do so. Turyanos executes them and spares the community. Rav Weiss concludes that an individual who gives his life to save the community has a direct path to the Garden of Eden. He states that when a nation is at war, there are unique rules of pikuah nefesh, the obligation to save a life. To win, the nation requires the self-sacrifice of not only its soldiers, but all those who fill essential, life-saving roles, such as police officers, fire fighters, security guards, and physicians. In the midst of a pandemic that has infected 13,000,000 and led to the death of 500,000 worldwide, one may reasonably conclude that we are at war with COVID-19, and that Sam and the other volunteers for a human vaccine challenge trial are voluntary conscripts. Though Halakhah permits one to undergo risky treatment to achieve a long-term cure, poskim, including Tiferet Yisrael Yoma 8:3, do not obligate participation. If the chance that the treatment will succeed is greater than 50%, Iggerot Moshe in Yore De'ah 3:36 and Choshen Mishpat 2:74:5 Rav Bleich explains that assuming risk for a long-term cure is permitted but not obligatory, because we trust a person to do what is reasonable to safeguard his body from danger. For those who are risk averse, undertaking a dangerous treatment or participating in a human vaccine trial would be unreasonable, while for the less conservative, such as Sam, the risk is acceptable. Experimental Therapy in Halakhah The discussion about dangerous medical treatment applies to therapies with known medical benefits. How does Halakhah approach risks incurred for experimental therapy with no proven benefit? Ttitz Eliezer 13:101 limits participation in experimental treatment to trials that are risk-free. Rav Moshe Dov Welner in ha-Torah ve-haMedinah, VII-VIII (5716-5717), 314, prohibits participation in clinical trials that lack scientific basis. He addresses a situation where the physician has no idea how to treat a disease and decides to experiment on a dying patient because the patient will die anyway. He calls such a physician a terrorist. The scientific reality surrounding human vaccine trials is vastly different than this extreme example. While the exact benefits of participation - such as whether the vaccine confers immunity and whether it will eradicate COVID-19 - are unknown, these trials employ vaccines that have already shown promise in preliminary trials and undergone extensive review by governmental and international agencies that have approved their scientific merit as potential vaccines. Such trials would not qualify as acts of desperation, implemented because the patient is dying anyway. Minhat Shlomo 2:82:12 permits participation in medical research, classifying the battle against disease as a milhemet mitzvah, a necessary war. Today we do not have a king or beit din to declare a milhemet mitzvah against disease and obligate the healthy to take dangerous medicines to help find a cure. He writes that because recognized experts, our contemporary equivalent of a beit din or king, take great care to execute these studies, one may participate. He explains that participation qualifies as holeh lefanenu, the presence of an actual sick person before us, which is considered a fundamental halakhic requirement for defining a situation as pikuah nefesh. In Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De'ah 280, Rav Yehezkel Landau prohibited autopsies because they are for the benefit of future patients, not those who appear before us now, and thus fail to meet a strict definition of holeh lefanenu.[16] Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explains that those autopsies were performed exclusively to increase the physician's knowledge, so are not comparable to experimental therapy. Rav Auerbach believes that contemporary medical research qualifies as holeh lefanenu because those sick with these diseases are before us, and the treatments to be tested are before us. He considers participation in clinical trials safek hatzalat nefashot - possibly life-saving - and not merely an academic exercise to increase scientific knowledge. Human Vaccine Challenge Trials Recently, Rav Asher Weiss[17] directly addressed the permissibility of participating in such trials. Reiterating his position in Minhat Asher 3:101 that one may endanger oneself to perform an essential communal role such as serving as a police officer, rescue worker, or even judge who risks death threats, he permits young, healthy individuals to participate in COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trials in controlled environments because the risk of complications or death is low, especially for those who are young and lack comorbidities, and the trial can potentially save thousands of lives. He notes the concerns of Noda be-Yehuda[18] and Hatam Sofer,[19] who prohibited autopsies because such procedures failed to satisfy their halakhic definition of holeh lefanenu. Rav Weiss explains that even if we do not define participation as pikuah nefesh, overriding biblical and rabbinic prohibitions, it is a mitzvah since it will save millions of lives. This social good permits Sam to assume the small risk of participation. Furthermore, one cannot extrapolate from the autopsies of the Noda be-Yehuda to contemporary scientific reality. It is highly unlikely that autopsies performed two hundred years ago affected medical care. He writes, "verifying the efficacy of a vaccine would not be categorized as a benefit in the distant future, but rather as a great mitzvah that is, in fact, halakhically considered to be possibly life-saving." He rejects Rav Auerbach's classification of medical research as milhemet mitzvah because this designation obligates participation in medical research, and Rav Weiss believes that participation is not obligatory. Only wars fought against enemy armies qualify as milhamot mitzvah, not public dangers such as wild animals and diseases, to which only the laws of pikuach nefesh apply. Conclusion The halakhic decisions cited above, including perhaps even Radbaz, would seem to permit Sam's participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial, because a healthy individual may incur a small risk of death, comparable to the risk permitted for other acts of altruism such as kidney donation to achieve long-term immunity. In addition, the potential benefit to society is immeasurable, preventing the death and suffering of millions by halting the spread of this pandemic and ending the physical, psychological, and economic devastation of prolonged social distancing. Table 1 ... [Okay, I couldn't pass the summary table of who defines chayei sha'ah as how long to the digest. So, go check the URL for yourself! Skipping to the foonotes. -micha] ... [7] Shvut Yaakov 3:75, Pithei Teshuvah Yoreh De'ah 339:1, Gilyon Maharsha Yoreh De'ah 155:1, Binat Adam 73, 93, Binyan Tziyyon 111, Tiferet Yisrael Boaz, Yoma 8:3, Ahiezer 2:16:6, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58 and 3:36, and Tzitz Eliezer 4:13, all permit a hayei sha'ah to undergo risky medical treatment for cure. [8] Bleich, J.D., "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures," Tradition, 37, no.3 (2003): 76-100, [241]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23262430 . [9] Bleich, J.D. "Genetic Screening: Survey of Recent Halachic Periodical Literature," Tradition, 34, no.1 (2000): 63-87, [243]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23261641?seq=1 . [10] Verity, R. et al, "Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis," Lancet Infect. Dis. March 30, 2020, [245]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20 )30243-7/fulltext . [11] Bleich, J.D., "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures," Tradition, 37, no. 3 (2003): 94. [12] Kol Kitvei ha-Ramban, II, 38. [13] Miller, G., Joffe, S., "Limits to Research Risks," J. Med. Ethics 35, 445 (2009). [14] Resnik, D., "Limits on Risks for Healthy Volunteers in Biomedical Research," Theor. Med. Bioeth. 33, no. 2 (April, 2012): 137. [15] Verity, R. et al, "Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis," Lancet Infect. Dis. March 30, 2020, [251]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20 )30243-7/fulltext. [16] For a more detailed discussion of the definition of holeh lefanenu in Covid-19, see our earlier Lehrhaus essay, [253]https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/sharpening-the-definition-of-h oleh-lefanenu-the-diamond-princess-and-the-limits-of-quarantine/. [17] Rav Asher Weiss, "Experimental Treatments for Coronavirus," Mosaica Press (2020): 5-7. [18] Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De'ah, 210. [19] Hatam Sofer Yoreh De'ah, 336. From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Aug 20 14:43:28 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:43:28 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. Message-ID: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> << Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory...." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required." Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? >> See Igeros Moshe Even HaEzer Chelek 1 siman 48 and also (and particularly) Igeros Moshe Orech Chaim chelek 5 siman 37:12: ????? ???? ???? ????, ???? ?????. ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????. ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????. ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? (???? ?"? ?"?), ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????. ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????. The covering of the head before her husband is not necessary. Since the prohibition of uncovering the head is only in the marketplace. And even at the time of her period, there is no prohibition in her house before her husband and children. And there is a hidur to do like Kimchit (Yoma 47a) but we have not heard that there are any modest like this and even in the earlier generations. And in the time of the Tanaim the married women were not accustomed so except for individuals like Kimchit. Note specifically *but we have not heard that there are any modest like this, and even in the earlier generations*. A reasonably translation of this is surely: neither Rav Moshe's wife, nor his mother did this. <> I think it depends on your community. In a modern orthodox community in which most women are not covering their hair when they go out in a public place either, I suspect many if not most of the few women who do cover their hair when they go out absolutely rely on this position, and sometimes more lenient ones inside their homes (ie only cover their hair when they go out, as per the pshat of the mishna & gemora in Ketubos as referred to by Rav Moshe, and not when in their home regardless of who is there). In the Satmar community where they shave their heads, no, I am pretty sure no women are relying on this leniency. Within the communities on the spectrum between these two poles, I suspect it varies, getting more likely as you move towards the more "modern" end and less likely as you move towards the more charedi and certainly Chassidic end. But Rav Moshe never having heard of it in his and in previous generations is a notable data point. Regards Chana From mcohen at touchlogic.com Thu Aug 20 17:04:40 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:04:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. In-Reply-To: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> Thank you for your comments RCL wrote... Note specifically *but we have not heard that there are any modest like this, and even in the earlier generations*. A reasonably translation of this is surely: neither Rav Moshe's wife, nor his mother did this. True; although I would like to hear what the Feinstein children testify about their mothers hanhaga.. RCL wrote... Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the presence of your father, husband and son. R moshe as quoted only mentions husband/children. Where/how do we expand this to her brother? if it was bc of the simple pshat of the Mishna & gemora in Ketubos, then everyone should be ok inside (not just brother/family) and if the heter is based on inside - is uncovered hair allowed when swimming w husband/children alone (but outside)? (it is illogical to suggest that there is a continual obligation to cover her hair outside, even when a permissible situation such as alone or only with other women) Mc From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Aug 20 17:56:42 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 01:56:42 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. In-Reply-To: <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> References: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <000001d67755$efd44600$cf7cd200$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMC writes: <> Actually, this wasn't me, this was the yoetzet website you quoted. <> I assume that the reasoning behind the website's psak is based on with whom she is allowed to have yichud. Rav Moshe also doesn't specifically mention father, and yet the logic of the website including father as automatically on the same page as husband and children would seem to be driven by the unity of halacha regarding yichud. The yichud status of brothers is a bit more complex, as a certain level of yichud is allowed, but not completely, and hence they would seem the logical extension to question, and one could understand a view that, to the extent yichud is allowed, so should this be. >Mc Regards Chana From akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com Fri Aug 21 03:06:29 2020 From: akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 06:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > I'd love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - > machshava balma (random thought?) which has no halachic significance, > amira (specific oral articulation) which is completely binding and > amen/specific machshava (really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat > indeterminate (not welcome in a brisker world?) It seems to me that what you're really asking is: How/why does "Shomea k'oneh" work? Why is it that if I listen to someone say something, and we both have the correct "specific machshava", it is considered "as if" I had said it myself? And, just as importantly, to what *extent* is it considered as if I said it myself? As an illustration of this principle, R' Danny Schoemann cited the Kitzur in 127:3 > Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday > following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi > shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient... > Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, > you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself. I'd like to offer another illustration: If a person is saying Shemoneh Esreh when the shul is at Kaddish or Kedusha, Mechaber 104:7 writes that "He should be quiet and pay attention to the shatz, and it will be like he is answering." And the Mishne Berura 104:28 explains: "It will be like he is answering for the purpose of being thereby yotzay for Kaddish and Kedusha, but nevertheless it is not considered a hefsek." The halacha of Shomea K'oneh seems to allow us to have it both ways: We have *effectively* said something, yet not *actually* said anything. [Email #2. -micha] Addendum to what I wrote a few minutes ago: I know that Shomea K'Oneh is effective even when one does not actually respond "Amen". After all, a precise translation of the phrase would NOT be "listening is like answering Amen", but is rather "mere listening is like repeating it yourself." And yet, I seem to recall that there are some specific cases where the halacha differs depending on whether the person actually said "Amen" aloud, vs where he merely listened with all the correct intentions. Does anyone else know of such cases? Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 21:33:33 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:33:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: To prevent the spread of COVID see https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the shofar? Does it affect the sound? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Fri Aug 21 04:57:08 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:57:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21/8/20 12:33 am, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > To prevent the spread of COVID see > https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ > > What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the > shofar? Does it affect the sound? The OU says it doesn't appear to. https://www.ou.org/covid19/ 9. Shofar: An appropriate precaution during shofar blowing would be to place a surgical mask over the wider end of the shofar, as this does not appear to alter the sound of the shofar blast. Some may point the shofar out an open window or door, or near and towards the front wall or aron kodesh, facing away from the congregation. A single shofar should not be used by multiple people, and no barrier should be placed between the shofar and the mouth of the one blowing the shofar. Poskim have addressed when and how much to sound the shofar where the time in shul is seriously limited -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 12:07:00 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 15:07:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 07:33:33AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ > What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the > shofar? Does it affect the sound? As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does not affect the sound. But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer without specifying which kind(s) of masks they experimented with. The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else with sensitive hearing in the minyan, you need them to say they don't hear a difference if they personally wish to be yotzei.) But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use. Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices. Chodesh Tov! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but add justice, don't complain about heresy, Author: Widen Your Tent but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Sat Aug 22 17:47:42 2020 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 20:47:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:45 PM Micha Berger wrote: >> What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the >> shofar? Does it affect the sound? > As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does > not affect the sound. > But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer ... > The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound > of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else > with sensitive hearing in the minyan... > But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the > resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use. > Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from > the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices. I blow shofar for my shul. I have placed a surgical mask on the shofar and blew the shofar for the Rav both on and off without him looking at the shofar. He did not hear a real difference and I concurred. You can get a different sound from the shofar depending on how you place it on your lips and the amount of air used. Rav Shulman of YU / YI Midwood suggests blowing under your tallit or at a door without a mask on the shofar. From zev at sero.name Sun Aug 23 01:04:56 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 04:04:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does > not affect the sound. No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound, and is therefore permissible. I have no idea whether they're right, but this is what they say, and they know the halacha, so I assume they've done whatever is necessary to determine the metzius. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 06:11:31 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 09:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200823131130.GA6504@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 04:04:56AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does >> not affect the sound. > No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound... As per the rest of the post you're quoting: My comment was that they take it for granted that the mask(s) they tested with are indicative of the mask a member shul may be using. I would not. (Had I been in the OU, I would have been more specific about which brand mask.) But I'm not questioning their pesaq that listening on the other side of the mask is the original qol and not a "qol havarah". ("Hatoqeia lesokh habor, mishnah RH, on top of 27b in Vilna Bavli) I therefore isolated their halachic stance which from their depiction of the mtzi'us. Because I wanted to raise the question whether, even leshitasam, is a piano tuner or other person with sensitive hearing can hear a difference the rest of us can't, would he be yotzei. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect http://www.aishdas.org/asp painting? It's easy. Author: Widen Your Tent Make yourself perfect and then just paint - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 19:45:48 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 22:45:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault Message-ID: . At the Eglah Arufa, the zekeinim declare, "Our hands did not spill this blood! Our eyes did not see!" I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: > The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly > responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any > stranger from our city without food (so that he might have > been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or > without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected > on a dangerous road)." How can the zekeinim have been so sure? Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed? We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident? I considered the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas Orchim organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never will happen. (The three listed there, if I read it correctly, are Ben Sorer Umoreh, Ir Hanidachas, and a house getting tzaraas.) But it's *not* listed there, so I suppose it might have happened, or at least, *could* happen. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Sun Aug 23 06:35:32 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 13:35:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed? > > We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident? > > ??????- I?m not sure these are Mutually exclusive. Perhaps they are saying that the fault is not systemic and of course we have to see where we fell short and try to improve on it Kt Joel RichTHIS 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 zev at sero.name Sun Aug 23 07:39:22 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 10:39:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22/8/20 10:45 pm, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I considered?the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only > done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the > Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas?Orchim > organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever > occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been > listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never > will happen. The answer seems very simple. Not even the most thorough hachnassas orchim will ever prevent all murders, because most crimes are *not* committed out of need. The idea that the victim was actually a robber who was killed in legitimate self-defence, but in a further plot twist he only robbed out of desperate need, and had the city's elders done their job this would never have happened, is very far-fetched. The overwhelming likelihood is that he was an innocent person who was killed by a robber who was acting out of greed or sheer wickedness, as *most* robbers do. The Zekeinim are merely ruling out that far-fetched scenario in which they would bear some responsibility. And if you ask why, in that case, do they have to go through this whole rigmarole to rule it out, I suggest that it's so that this possibility is always on their minds, and they do their utmost to make sure that in the unlikely even that a body is ever found they should be *able* to make this declaration. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Aug 23 06:27:37 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:27:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Going swimming with your sister Message-ID: I always thought that brothers and sisters (even teenagers) could go mixed swimming privately just the immediate family because we assume that there are no hirhurim among immediate family members. However, I listened to the Headlines podcast where he interviewed an Israeli posek from Machon Puah who claimed that it was forbidden. Anyone have any sources? Piskei Halacha from modern poskim? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Aug 23 09:24:06 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:24:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee Message-ID: From https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-will-be-travelling-and-would-like-to-know-if-there-is-a-concern-of-bishul-akum-with-coffee-a-consumers-question I will be travelling and would like to know if there is a concern of bishul akum with coffee? (A consumer's question) OU Kosher Certification Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel. Raw coffee beans are inedible, a... See the above URL for more. From zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 24 09:27:09 2020 From: zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com (Zalman Alpert) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 12:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As > previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh > al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel. > Raw coffee beans are inedible, a... Great example of what DR Hayym Soloveitchik wrote about in his seminal essay Rupture and Reconstruction. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Aug 24 10:49:59 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 13:49:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200824174959.GF11765@aishdas.org> Bishul aku"m only applies to foods that are olim al shulchan melakhim. Qiddush can be made on chamar medinah. Seems to be a lower standard, when it comes to drinks, as the masses are unlikely to be pickier than their kings. The AhS (OC 272:12) ranks yayin and then sheikhar ahead of other drinks, but does include sweetened tea among the things one may make qiddush on. Similarly, IM OC 2:75. (Likely an indication of the price of sugar, RYME names tei matoq in particular as chamar medinah, not just writing "tei". Another measure of their poverty is his discussing their general use of raisin wine, as a reason why they were allowed to choose sheikhar even if wine was available. Meaning, I don't know if the AhS would allow this choice for us today.) But I am wondering benogei'ah to our original topic is whether it's possible to formulate a consistent shitah in which coffee can not be used for Qiddush and also cannot be used if bishul aku"m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message http://www.aishdas.org/asp that God is not yet discouraged with Author: Widen Your Tent humanity. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabindranath Tagore From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Aug 24 11:18:23 2020 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 14:18:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: I have an even better solution. Have the baal tekiah get a Covid test now and then a couple days before R?H and if both tests are negative and he is in good health, the chances of him having the virus is almost zero. From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 24 16:08:22 2020 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 7:02 PM Cantor Wolberg wrote: > Have the baal tekiah get a Covid test now and then a couple days before > R"H and if both tests are negative and he is in good health, the > chances of him having the virus is almost zero. It is possible to catch the virus after getting tested. Most tests take days to come back; by then you are contagious. Only if you test positive for antibodies, do you know that you have had the virus. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Aug 24 18:33:48 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:33:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee Message-ID: . According to the OU at the link posted, > Nonetheless, the Pri Chodosh writes that brewed coffee need > not be bishul Yisroel, since coffee is primarily water, and > water does not require bishul Yisroel. I have difficulty following that logic. Granted that if one looks at the ingredients, coffee is indeed primarily water. But why is that fact more relevant than the importance that society gives to this beverage? R' Micha Berger pointed out that Chamar Medinah "seems to be a lower standard" than Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim, and I'd agree. But I think it's irrelevant, because it is obvious to me that coffee is Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim. The dessert at a state dinner would not be s'mores and Slurpees; it would be elegant cakes and coffee. I suspect that for some reason (possibly the fact that Bishul Akum has little to do with kashrus and much to do with limiting our social contact with non-Jews), the rabbis went out of their way to find leniencies for it, and drinks is an example of such a leniency; I suspect that it never occurred to Chazal to extend the gezera beyond solid foods. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Aug 26 09:49:29 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:49:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Honoring Step Parents & More Message-ID: Please see https://vosizneias.com/2020/08/26/honoring-step-parents-more/ I found this to be a very interesting article YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 23:07:38 2020 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:07:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: It seems more reasonable to blow under the tallis without a mask. After a while, the tokea has to shake water out of the shofar. Slightly challenging with a mask on it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 23:11:27 2020 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:11:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Davening_at_home_on_Yamim_Nora=E2=80=99im?= Message-ID: This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. We will miss out on much of the ?experience? of the piyutim. Does anyone know of guidelines for what to do at home, such as part of chazarat haShatz? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 05:57:18 2020 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:57:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im Message-ID: RChaim Tafel wrote: > This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul > for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. > We will miss out on much of the "experience" of > the piyutim. Does anyone know of guidelines for > what to do at home, such as part of chazarat haShatz? Say them all except for the few you should only ever say when you are shatz, for example the netilot reshut, like all the misod chakhamim unevonim lines and such as the Ochila (which really, in my opinion, despite the popular tunes, the tzibbur should never say, as it is the netilat reshut for the shatz to insert the seder ha'avodah). Also skip obviously hineni he'ani mima'as, as it is for the shatz. Also skip the E-lohein vE-lohei Avoteinu heyei 'im pifiyot (which in my opinion the shatz shouldn't ever say, as it is a prayer for the shatz' success recited by the public). Finally, obviously whenever the cachzor calls for reciting 13 middot, depending on the poskim you follow, either skip or recite with te'amim. Otherwise I see no reason why you couldn'T beautifully sing your way through the entire machzor. But don't use one of these butchered machzorim, go for the real, unabbreviated, full and complete Rdelheim. (I am assuming you're ashkenazi, because Sefardi piyutim are altogether different). [Email #2. -micha] By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata Hu E-loheinu. In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. I am obviously totally tolerant, but it is still poetically wrong, objectively so. ;-) Ketiva vachatima tova, -- Mit freundlichen Gren, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Aug 28 06:14:15 2020 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 07:53 AM 8/28/2020, Chaim Tate wrote: >This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul for Rosh Hashanah and >Yom Kippur. >We will miss out on much of the ?experience? of the piyutim. >Does anyone know of guidelines for what to do at home, such as part of >chazarat haShatz? The YI of Midwood sent out an email saying that no piyyutim will be said during the davening on the Yomim Noraim. After all in many shuls the davening on Shabbos has been curtailed due to concerns about the virus. (no speeches and no singing). In some shuls people have been told to daven up to Baruch She'omer before coming to shul. So you won't be missing anything if other shuls follow the YI of Midwood! Personally I hope they do. Long davening can lead to the spread of the virus even with proper social distancing. Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said the it is better to daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more that 15 minutes , IIRC. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From crclbas at aol.com Fri Aug 28 06:49:54 2020 From: crclbas at aol.com (BenS) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:49:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Yomim Tovim References: <2007338277.6646156.1598622594128.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2007338277.6646156.1598622594128@mail.yahoo.com> The RCA And? ?YU have sent suggestions for shuls who want to skip certain piyutim. ASk your Rov for these guidelines. This can also be used for those who must daven at home. But be sure to arrange for Shofar on the second day. Minimum of 30 Kolos are needed. Shonoh Tovah!! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Aug 30 06:53:54 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 13:53:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos Message-ID: Please see https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-want-to-order-a-new-cell-phone-and-am-not-particular-when-it-will-arrive-am-i-permitted-to-place-an-order-online-if-the-website-indicates-the-package-will-arrive-on-saturday/?category&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shsh%20Ki%20Teitzei%205780%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=32470835&spUserID=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&spJobID=1764350018&spReportId=MTc2NDM1MDAxOAS2 YL I want to order a new cell phone and am not particular when it will arrive. Am I permitted to place an order online if the website indicates the package will arrive on Saturday? | OU Kosher Certification The issue here is whether arranging a delivery for Shabbos constitutes Amirah li?akum (instructing a non-Jew to perform melacha on Shabbos), which is prohibited. One might assume that this is analogous to handing a letter to a non-Jew on Friday and a... oukosher.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Aug 29 19:57:19 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 22:57:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d Message-ID: . In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? This may happen elsewhere too, but this case stands out because the form changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out to Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the contrast? If the third person was reasonable in the first part, why switch to the first person later on? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Aug 31 13:58:44 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-want-to-order-a-new-cell-phone-and-am-not-particular-when-it-will-arrive-am-i-permitted-to-place-an-order-online-if-the-website-indicates-the-package-will-arrive-on-saturday > One may not place an order if the delivery will definitely take place > on Shabbos. For example, one cannot send a package with UPS or FedEx > on Friday and select ?next day delivery?. Similarly, one cannot order > a refrigerator or washing machine from a store and arrange for a > Saturday delivery. I disagree with the author on this. Since they could choose to deliver after Shabbos and still fulfil their obligation, you are not telling them to deliver on Shabbos. In the winter this could actually happen. But even in the summer, when you can be fairly sure they won't do that, that's their choice not yours; if they did arrive after Shabbos you would have no right to complain, so you are not asking them to work on Shabbos. Only if they guarantee that "all deliveries will be made during business hours" or something similar would you not be allowed to order a Saturday delivery. And even then, if there's a space for delivery notes, and you write that late night delivery will be OK, that should be enough to permit it, even if you can be fairly sure it won't change anything. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Sep 1 06:53:18 2020 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:53:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > > From: Akiva Miller > > In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today > to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) > > Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > This may happen elsewhere too, I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the G-d of Avraham, etc. Therefore, the layman refers to the G-d of the Kohane, whose biblical role is to teach of Hashem and His Torah and therefore conceptualized Hashem more accurately. (I would have to concede that at first sight this does not work in cases where the person bringing the Bikkurim is actually greater than the Kohane. One can answer that it's a matter of *lo plug, *using a fixed formula for everyone at all times, following the normal situation. Or I would modify my explanation to say that the Kohane may not necessarily have a higher conceptualization but, through his avodah, a unique one not shared by others, which is relevant to the Bikkurim bringer in his role as such.) but this case stands out because the form > changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out to > Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the contrast?... > I think the above explanation works to explain this. In fact, note that the farmer is referring to the G-d of our "ancestors," meaning G-d as understood by the avos. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 12:29:01 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:29:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901192901.GA18013@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:53:18AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > This may happen elsewhere too, > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > G-d of Avraham, etc... I would have written something very similar, if RAM's email weren't still flagged "to do" in my email box when RZL's came in. However, I wouldn't have used the word "hasagah". I would have talked about the need to list "E-lokei Avraham", "E-lokai Yitzchaq" and "E-lokai Yaaqov" separately. To me, it speaks to the idea that the avos each had distinct relationships with the Borei. The "G-d of Avraham" was a different relationship than the G-d Yitzchaq "had" (kevayakhol). I don't know how RZL meant the word "hasagah", but to me it speaks to knowing *about* something. As in greater people have greater understandings of what G-d is. I would instead has said that "E-lokekha" is about the G-d the kohein has time to relate to more constantly than the farmer does. And it might also make the Vidui a statement about the farmer's relationship with G-d. Rather than who has more relationship, but about kidn of relationship. After all, the kohein may be learning, teaching and doing avodah all day, but the farmer teams up with G-d and relies on G-d to produce his crop. That's the point of the vidui -- that the G-d of Yetzias Mitzrayim gets credit for more day-to-day things my success. Something a kohein may only get more vicariously. So, he's saying to the kohein, "G-d is not only how you relate to Him from your ivory tower -- 'Your G-d', realize He also is intimately involved in my life and everyday life." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Interesting quote my signature generator chose from the perspective of being this close to the end of 5780. (Although we must remember, we are likely the first generation for whom life is normally so wonderful, this year qualified as a notably "bad" one.) -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 15:54:36 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901225436.GC18013@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:30:40PM -0400, Ken Bloom wrote: > Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one > should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in > finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. I'll give you "or elsewhere". Here's what I do. 1- During the year, I try to keep a cheshbon hanefesh. Laziness and momentum being what it is, that means that I usually have a journal of the decisions and reactions of a few 1 to 2 month stretches during the year. So, something I do early in Elul is review those, see patterns, what changed during the gaps... And trying to compensate changes because I was just focused on different things in different parts of the year. I then try to mentally fill in the gaps, as I can. And then I make a list of those issues in my reactions, decisions and actions that seem to have recurred a lot. It's often not the issues I was thinking I was failing at before I looked through notes. For that matter, even if you "just" keep a diary of your responses to the week -- not what happened to you, but how you responded to it -- from now to RH would give more insight to what habits and middos might really need the most attention. And to make that list, I try for a list of 2 to 4 items that both need the most attention and yet balanced with things I can actually tackle. For example, I have a long-running battle with ka'as. But it may not be the chink in the armor most ready to move. I might want to work on my frustration threshold, noting that my temper is very often the sum of frustration plus having someone I can pin blame on. And the plan has to be incremental. Not "starting YK I never will..." or "will always", but "starting YK I will take the first step to... which is..." For exmple, not expressing frustration in a given set of situations. Or maybe right after work for the first hour I'm home. Or whatever. 2- So much for correcting past mistakes. My other step is something Bank of America mislabeled Hoshin Planning that I adapted for life. https://www.aishdas.org/asp/hoshin-plan 2a- Find a Mission Statement At this point, I have a mission statement I aspire to live by. The first year, I didn't. I picked a quote from a sefer that at the time (and still) really moved me. Look for something from a seifer (including the siddur) that sums up life's mission for you. Is it about deveiqus? And if about deveiqus -- what does that mean to you? Knowledge (as per the Rambam)? Experiencing the Divine? Having a relationship with Hashem? Partnering with Him in His Work -- and what is His Work? Or maybe you see it in terms of sheleimus or temimus. But then, what is a person supposed to be, that you can talk about being more perfect at being one? Is it emulating Hashem? Or bein adam lachaveiro? Or maybe you're on another page altogether -- you see the Torah's mission for your life in terms of Jewish Nationhood, or humanity. And I realize many of those will yield different phrasing of nearly the same answer. But only nearly the same. There could be situations where connotations matter and have a nafqa mina lemaaseh. But in any case, it has to be moving and inspiring based on the way HQBH made you. In short -- a sentence or two about how you see what the Torah is telling you to be at this point in your life. After the first year, you tweak it and revise it as you change. 2b- Drilling down A Mission Statement is pointless if it doesn't have a way to influence action. In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for the firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could help reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division. His group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc... The idea is that there is an individual programmer like myself can be shown how my program fits in the team's goal, the group's goal and so on up to the firm's goal as written up in the Mission Statement. Similarly life's Mission Statement. We can divide it and subdivide it into managable lists. Maybe three bullet items as top-level goals to make the mission statament happen. And 2-4 each for each of those goals to make subgoals and so on. The idea is to get to the point that when you decide to go to the kitchen to get a cup of coffee, you have a way to relate that decision to the approach to living al pi haTorah that you framed for yourself. Let me give an example, taken from the above blog page. Since I wrote a book based on R Shimon's haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher, the quote would be no surprise. For that matter, ch. 2 is titled "Mission Statement" and is a collection of thoughts about the openining sentence of the haqdamah. See the first paragraph of the copy in Widen Your Tent sec 1.1, pg 45 of the book or pg 4 of https://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf#page=4 So, my orignal mission statement translates to (it is important to be in first person singular): [My] greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that [I] walk in His ways. Now I can divide that into three subgoals: - Having a connection to G-d - Internalizing His Will - Being a conduit of Hashem's Good into the lives of others. Internalizing His will, for example, was first subdivided into - Daily learning (which is what drives projects like AhS Yomi) - Daily Mussar work (like what I'm describing in this post), and - Regular in-depth learning -- chavrusos, shiurim, etc... Notice at this point I can start filling in things I can do this year. What learning? Which shiurim? As in part 1 -- which middos and what are the first months' exercises to chip away at them. (And buying a pretty new notebook. Somehow I do best at cheshbon hanefesh when I have a kewl new toy to do it with.) Hopefully, by month end when this "Spiritual Hoshin Plan" is done, I can pause in the middle of the workday and be able to say for myself that I'm putting up with this irate trader on the phone (I work for a Hedge Fund) so that I can pay for tuition (goal 3.2.4.2.5 or some-such), I can develop my personal creativity (as per 1.2... as being in the image of the Creator is something I view as a Mussar goal), etc.. And thereby give sanctity to an otherwise mundane (and stressfull) activity. And then every year things shift. Both in how I look at the world and in what are the pressing issues requiring more attention. Where parenting sits in the hierarchy was very different when I started than now that my youngest is a teenager. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. http://www.aishdas.org/asp It preserves health, promotes convalescence, Author: Widen Your Tent and helps us cope with adversity. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 12:46:48 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:46:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901194648.GB18013@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:45:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In > the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: >> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly >> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any >> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have >> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or >> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected >> on a dangerous road)." > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed > through unnoticed? Does it say that unnoticed strangers are included? The gemara (Sotah 46b) says (original at https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.9 ): Would it cross our minds that BD were murderers? Rather [they are saying]: He did not come to us and we dismissed him without food. We didn't see him and leave him without accompaniment. My translation matches the TMS's, minus their parenthetic comments. (Which I will now assume is the author's insertions, rather than part of the medrash.) The two phrases "lo ba leyadeinu" and "vera'inhu" seem to me to mean the BD are saying that the didn't neglect anyone they knew of. That not knowing the person was in town would be one of the reasons they wouldn't be guilty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the http://www.aishdas.org/asp better if possible, and of changing himself for Author: Widen Your Tent the better if necessary. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 05:00:31 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos Message-ID: . Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day away. I think it is assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. In contrast, if I request Monday delivery, that would be okay, even though I know that they'll be working for me on Shabbos, because it was their choice to work on Saturday rather than Sunday. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 07:11:20 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:11:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:00:31AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? Well, if there isn't a contracted delivery date of Shabbos, then it's their choice whether to do melakhah for you on Shabbos, Friday or Sunday. The package could sit around in a transfer facility for 25 hours while they deal with more urgent packages if it's not the delivery date. The choice is theirs. But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. I guess in the case of (eg) 3 day delivery, since it wouldn't violate the contract to get it there in 2, someone might argue that you aren't asking them to do the delivery on Shabbos. But I don't know if mutar alternatives matter even when they're implausible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Sep 2 11:46:49 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:46:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66cf413b-bbfa-c02e-885f-8a8bb7e152ce@sero.name> On 2/9/20 8:00 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day > away. I think it is?assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know > that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. I agree, *if* you know where it's coming from, and that it's not bich'dei sheyei'asu without working on Shabbos. But in the general case you don't know that, and I don't see why you have to worry about it just on spec. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 17:45:46 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:45:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said that it is better to daven a > little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that > selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more than 15 > minutes, IIRC. It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time that's been taken from them. Much more important is the speed at which it is said. If the length of time would remain constant, but pages were skipped so that the rest could be said carefully and attentively, THAT'S what Chazal meant by "better to daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Sep 2 13:49:48 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:49:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. ------------------------------- And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's Saturday delivery and you say nothing? KVCT 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 akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 18:08:38 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:08:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: . In the thread "Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im", R' Arie Folger wrote: > By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper > recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused > wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata > Hu E-loheinu. > > In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to > read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next > line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the > opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, > so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the > proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. I can see where some people might read the above, and feel that Rabbi Folger is being subjective and arbitrary in his choices of "proper" and "wrong". I had my brain all psyched up to spend the next hour or so writing a post to explain how he is objectively correct, and then I remembered that we covered this ground four years ago. Anyone who wants to learn more about how the recitation of these piyutim got messed up is strongly invited to review the thread "conservatism in davening" at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CONSERVATISM%20IN%20DAVENING Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mzeldman2 at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 00:33:32 2020 From: mzeldman2 at gmail.com (Moshe Zeldman) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 10:33:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If one should not say ?starting YK I will never...?, then how does that fit with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the vidui is saying ?and I will never do X again?? It sounds difficult to read into the Rambam that he means ?I?m still going to be doing X but I have a plan to eventually stop? On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 4:12 wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > > avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/ > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms > > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Hashem your G-d (Zvi Lampel) > > 2. Re: Hashem your G-d (Micha Berger) > > 3. Re: What to do in Elul? (Micha Berger) > > 4. Re: It's not our fault (Micha Berger) > > 5. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Akiva Miller) > > 6. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Micha Berger) > > 7. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Zev Sero) > > 8. Re: Davening at home on Yamim Noraim (Akiva Miller) > > 9. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Rich, Joel) > > 10. Re: conservatism in davening (Akiva Miller) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:53:18 -0400 > > From: Zvi Lampel > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , > > Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d > > Message-ID: > > < > CAPxEyabfrsb8kDLQzd7BTYpcZcQqOcyaDrjdZbyW8pD-K46QbA at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > > > > > > > > From: Akiva Miller > > > > > > In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today > > > to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) > > > > > > Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > > > > > This may happen elsewhere too, > > > > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher > > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers > > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > > G-d of Avraham, etc. Therefore, the layman refers to the G-d of the Kohane, > > whose biblical role is to teach of Hashem and His Torah and therefore > > conceptualized Hashem more accurately. > > > > (I would have to concede that at first sight this does not work in > > cases where the person bringing the Bikkurim is actually greater than the > > Kohane. One can answer that it's a matter of *lo plug, *using a fixed > > formula for everyone at all times, following the normal situation. Or I > > would modify my explanation to say that the Kohane may not necessarily have > > a higher conceptualization but, through his avodah, a unique one not shared > > by others, which is relevant to the Bikkurim bringer in his role as such.) > > > > but this case stands out because the form > > > changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out > to > > > Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the > contrast?... > > > > > > > I think the above explanation works to explain this. In fact, note that the > > farmer is referring to the G-d of our "ancestors," meaning G-d as > > understood by the avos. > > > > Zvi Lampel > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200901/89f8687e/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:29:01 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller , Zvi Lampel > > > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d > > Message-ID: <20200901192901.GA18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:53:18AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > > >> Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > > > > > This may happen elsewhere too, > > > > > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are > higher > > > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and > refers > > > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > > > G-d of Avraham, etc... > > > > I would have written something very similar, if RAM's email weren't still > > flagged "to do" in my email box when RZL's came in. > > > > However, I wouldn't have used the word "hasagah". I would have talked about > > the need to list "E-lokei Avraham", "E-lokai Yitzchaq" and "E-lokai Yaaqov" > > separately. > > > > To me, it speaks to the idea that the avos each had distinct relationships > > with the Borei. The "G-d of Avraham" was a different relationship than > > the G-d Yitzchaq "had" (kevayakhol). > > > > I don't know how RZL meant the word "hasagah", but to me it speaks to > knowing > > *about* something. As in greater people have greater understandings of what > > G-d is. > > > > I would instead has said that "E-lokekha" is about the G-d the kohein has > > time to relate to more constantly than the farmer does. > > > > And it might also make the Vidui a statement about the farmer's > > relationship with G-d. Rather than who has more relationship, but about > > kidn of relationship. > > > > After all, the kohein may be learning, teaching and doing avodah all > > day, but the farmer teams up with G-d and relies on G-d to produce his > > crop. That's the point of the vidui -- that the G-d of Yetzias Mitzrayim > > gets credit for more day-to-day things my success. Something a kohein > > may only get more vicariously. > > > > So, he's saying to the kohein, "G-d is not only how you relate to Him > > from your ivory tower -- 'Your G-d', realize He also is intimately > > involved in my life and everyday life." > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger If you're going through hell > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. > > Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > PS: Interesting quote my signature generator chose from the perspective > > of being this close to the end of 5780. (Although we must remember, we > > are likely the first generation for whom life is normally so wonderful, > > this year qualified as a notably "bad" one.) > > > > -- > > Micha Berger If you're going through hell > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. > > Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:54:36 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: avodah at aishdas.org, Ken Bloom > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? > > Message-ID: <20200901225436.GC18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:30:40PM -0400, Ken Bloom wrote: > > > Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what > one > > > should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in > > > finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. > > > > I'll give you "or elsewhere". Here's what I do. > > > > 1- > > > > During the year, I try to keep a cheshbon hanefesh. Laziness and momentum > > being what it is, that means that I usually have a journal of the decisions > > and reactions of a few 1 to 2 month stretches during the year. > > > > So, something I do early in Elul is review those, see patterns, what > > changed during the gaps... And trying to compensate changes because I > > was just focused on different things in different parts of the year. > > I then try to mentally fill in the gaps, as I can. And then I make a > > list of those issues in my reactions, decisions and actions that seem > > to have recurred a lot. It's often not the issues I was thinking I was > > failing at before I looked through notes. > > > > For that matter, even if you "just" keep a diary of your responses to the > > week -- not what happened to you, but how you responded to it -- from now > > to RH would give more insight to what habits and middos might really need > > the most attention. > > > > And to make that list, I try for a list of 2 to 4 items that both need the > > most attention and yet balanced with things I can actually tackle. For > > example, I have a long-running battle with ka'as. But it may not be > > the chink in the armor most ready to move. I might want to work on my > > frustration threshold, noting that my temper is very often the sum of > > frustration plus having someone I can pin blame on. > > > > And the plan has to be incremental. Not "starting YK I never will..." > > or "will always", but "starting YK I will take the first step to... > > which is..." > > > > For exmple, not expressing frustration in a given set of situations. > > Or maybe right after work for the first hour I'm home. Or whatever. > > > > 2- > > > > So much for correcting past mistakes. My other step is something > > Bank of America mislabeled Hoshin Planning that I adapted for life. > > > > https://www.aishdas.org/asp/hoshin-plan > > > > 2a- Find a Mission Statement > > > > At this point, I have a mission statement I aspire to live by. > > > > The first year, I didn't. I picked a quote from a sefer that at the time > > (and still) really moved me. Look for something from a seifer (including > > the siddur) that sums up life's mission for you. Is it about deveiqus? > > And if about deveiqus -- what does that mean to you? Knowledge (as per > > the Rambam)? Experiencing the Divine? Having a relationship with Hashem? > > Partnering with Him in His Work -- and what is His Work? Or maybe you see > > it in terms of sheleimus or temimus. But then, what is a person supposed > > to be, that you can talk about being more perfect at being one? Is it > > emulating Hashem? Or bein adam lachaveiro? Or maybe you're on another > > page altogether -- you see the Torah's mission for your life in terms > > of Jewish Nationhood, or humanity. > > > > And I realize many of those will yield different phrasing of nearly the > same > > answer. But only nearly the same. There could be situations where > connotations > > matter and have a nafqa mina lemaaseh. But in any case, it has to be moving > > and inspiring based on the way HQBH made you. > > > > In short -- a sentence or two about how you see what the Torah is telling > > you to be at this point in your life. > > > > After the first year, you tweak it and revise it as you change. > > > > 2b- Drilling down > > > > A Mission Statement is pointless if it doesn't have a way to influence > > action. > > > > In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for the > > firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could help > > reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division. His > > group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc... The idea is that > > there is an individual programmer like myself can be shown how my program > > fits in the team's goal, the group's goal and so on up to the firm's goal > > as written up in the Mission Statement. > > > > Similarly life's Mission Statement. We can divide it and subdivide it > > into managable lists. Maybe three bullet items as top-level goals to > > make the mission statament happen. And 2-4 each for each of those > > goals to make subgoals and so on. > > > > The idea is to get to the point that when you decide to go to the kitchen > > to get a cup of coffee, you have a way to relate that decision to the > > approach to living al pi haTorah that you framed for yourself. > > > > Let me give an example, taken from the above blog page. > > > > Since I wrote a book based on R Shimon's haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher, > > the quote would be no surprise. For that matter, ch. 2 is titled > > "Mission Statement" and is a collection of thoughts about the > > openining sentence of the haqdamah. See the first paragraph of > > the copy in Widen Your Tent sec 1.1, pg 45 of the book or pg 4 of > > https://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf#page=4 > > > > So, my orignal mission statement translates to (it is important to > > be in first person singular): > > [My] greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals > > and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator > > (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according > > to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the > > creations. So too His Will is that [I] walk in His ways. > > > > Now I can divide that into three subgoals: > > - Having a connection to G-d > > - Internalizing His Will > > - Being a conduit of Hashem's Good into the lives of others. > > > > Internalizing His will, for example, was first subdivided into > > - Daily learning (which is what drives projects like AhS Yomi) > > - Daily Mussar work (like what I'm describing in this post), and > > - Regular in-depth learning -- chavrusos, shiurim, etc... > > > > Notice at this point I can start filling in things I can do this year. > > What learning? Which shiurim? As in part 1 -- which middos and what are > > the first months' exercises to chip away at them. (And buying a pretty > > new notebook. Somehow I do best at cheshbon hanefesh when I have a > > kewl new toy to do it with.) > > > > Hopefully, by month end when this "Spiritual Hoshin Plan" is done, I > > can pause in the middle of the workday and be able to say for myself > > that I'm putting up with this irate trader on the phone (I work for a > > Hedge Fund) so that I can pay for tuition (goal 3.2.4.2.5 or some-such), > > I can develop my personal creativity (as per 1.2... as being in the > > image of the Creator is something I view as a Mussar goal), etc.. And > > thereby give sanctity to an otherwise mundane (and stressfull) activity. > > > > And then every year things shift. Both in how I look at the world and in > > what are the pressing issues requiring more attention. Where parenting > > sits in the hierarchy was very different when I started than now that my > > youngest is a teenager. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable > treasure. > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp It preserves health, promotes convalescence, > > Author: Widen Your Tent and helps us cope with adversity. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of > Mishlei" > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:46:48 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] It's not our fault > > Message-ID: <20200901194648.GB18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:45:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > > > I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In > > > the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: > > > > >> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly > > >> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any > > >> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have > > >> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or > > >> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected > > >> on a dangerous road)." > > > > > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > > > > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have > passed > > > through unnoticed? > > > > Does it say that unnoticed strangers are included? > > > > The gemara (Sotah 46b) says (original at > https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.9 ): > > Would it cross our minds that BD were murderers? > > > > Rather [they are saying]: He did not come to us and we dismissed him > > without food. We didn't see him and leave him without accompaniment. > > > > My translation matches the TMS's, minus their parenthetic comments. (Which > > I will now assume is the author's insertions, rather than part of the > > medrash.) > > > > The two phrases "lo ba leyadeinu" and "vera'inhu" seem to me to mean > > the BD are saying that the didn't neglect anyone they knew of. That not > > knowing the person was in town would be one of the reasons they wouldn't > > be guilty. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp better if possible, and of changing himself > for > > Author: Widen Your Tent the better if necessary. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Victor Frankl, Man's search for > Meaning > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:31 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: > > KNCNNA at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on > > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? > > > > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day away. I > > think it is assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know that it won't > > be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. In contrast, > > if I request Monday delivery, that would be okay, even though I know that > > they'll be working for me on Shabbos, because it was their choice to work > > on Saturday rather than Sunday. > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/5837fd1d/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:11:20 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: <20200902141120.GA27483 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:00:31AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus > on > > > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? > > > > Well, if there isn't a contracted delivery date of Shabbos, then it's > > their choice whether to do melakhah for you on Shabbos, Friday or Sunday. > > The package could sit around in a transfer facility for 25 hours while > > they deal with more urgent packages if it's not the delivery date. The > > choice is theirs. > > > > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > > > > I guess in the case of (eg) 3 day delivery, since it wouldn't violate the > > contract to get it there in 2, someone might argue that you aren't > > asking them to do the delivery on Shabbos. But I don't know if mutar > > alternatives matter even when they're implausible. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his > fellow > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew > worries > > Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's > stomach. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:46:49 -0400 > > From: Zev Sero > > To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: <66cf413b-bbfa-c02e-885f-8a8bb7e152ce at sero.name> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > > On 2/9/20 8:00 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day > > > away. I think it is?assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know > > > that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during > Shabbos. > > > > I agree, *if* you know where it's coming from, and that it's not > > bich'dei sheyei'asu without working on Shabbos. But in the general case > > you don't know that, and I don't see why you have to worry about it just > > on spec. > > > > -- > > Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer > > zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:45:46 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim > > Message-ID: > > < > CABiM0c+1patT7b5FcLCxbn8wuZsCXzmoGyC846J6cQxP-9JJjQ at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > > > > > Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said that it is better to daven a > > > little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that > > > selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more than 15 > > > minutes, IIRC. > > > > It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing > > to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better > > than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time > > that's been taken from them. > > > > Much more important is the speed at which it is said. If the length of time > > would remain constant, but pages were skipped so that the rest could be > > said carefully and attentively, THAT'S what Chazal meant by "better to > > daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without." > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/455f462f/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 9 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:49:48 +0000 > > From: "Rich, Joel" > > To: 'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group' > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: > > < > CY4PR02MB25993558995FE1F789868116BF2F0 at CY4PR02MB2599.namprd02.prod.outlook.com > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > > ------------------------------- > > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's > Saturday delivery and you say nothing? > > KVCT > > 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 10 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:08:38 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] conservatism in davening > > Message-ID: > > < > CABiM0cJ4esqYBS9zWh5bP1UnGZYs67zrTwZ+HeYOcVVLWc9ULw at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > In the thread "Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im", R' Arie Folger wrote: > > > > > By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper > > > recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused > > > wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata > > > Hu E-loheinu. > > > > > > In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to > > > read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next > > > line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the > > > opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, > > > so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the > > > proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. > > > > I can see where some people might read the above, and feel that Rabbi > > Folger is being subjective and arbitrary in his choices of "proper" and > > "wrong". I had my brain all psyched up to spend the next hour or so writing > > a post to explain how he is objectively correct, and then I remembered that > > we covered this ground four years ago. > > > > Anyone who wants to learn more about how the recitation of these piyutim > > got messed up is strongly invited to review the thread "conservatism in > > davening" at > > > https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CONSERVATISM%20IN%20DAVENING > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/fc503c3c/attachment.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Avodah mailing list > > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah > > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 38, Issue 72 > > ************************************** > > -- ----------------------------- Moshe Zeldman Israel: (+972) 54 256 2888 US/Canada: 647 580 8965 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 18:34:46 2020 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:34:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d Message-ID: In Avodah V38n72, RZL noted: > This may happen elsewhere too < The first example which came into my mind when I saw RAMiller's message was a phrase in the P'Zachor *haftara* -- see I Sam 15:15. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 3 09:09:03 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 12:09:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <15e6bfd6-3399-dbb5-a721-6671f0b31da4@sero.name> On 2/9/20 4:49 pm, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > ------------------------------- > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's Saturday delivery and you say nothing? That should be fine. It's their decision, not yours. You told them you don't mind if they deliver it on Sunday. It's the same as dropping something off at the cleaners right before Shabbos and telling them you want it by 6 AM on Sunday. Since they could work on it all night Motzei Shabbos, you're fine, even though you know they will choose not to. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 18:13:02 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 21:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul Message-ID: . R' Moshe Zeldman asked: > If one should not say "starting YK I will never...", then how > does that fit with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the > vidui is saying "and I will never do X again"? > It sounds difficult to read into the Rambam that he means "I'm > still going to be doing X but I have a plan to eventually stop" Yes, the Rambam does say that at the beginning of Perek 1. But Perek 2 is all about less-than-ideal sorts of teshuva. I concede that I didn't notice the Rambam explicitly mentioning this weaning as a legitimate less-than-ideal form of teshuva. But still, it is hard for me to imagine that he would invalidate someone who said, "I did it, and I should not have done it, and I feel sorry that I did it, and in the future I will do it less than I used to." And even if the Rambam *would* say that such a person has *not* done teshuva, remember the context in which this idea was suggested: a person who has repeatedly found this particular aveira unusually difficult to conquer. Imagine further, that this person succeeds in a slow elimination of this aveira, and after many years - decades perhaps - he has finally conquered it. Such a person would certainly be no less of a Baal Teshuva than the one who the Rambam described in the middle section of halacha 2:1: "Even if he didn't do teshuva until his elderly days, and when it was impossible for his to do what he used to do, even though it's not an excellent teshuva, it still helps him, and he is a Baal Teshuva." Please note that this person described by the Rambam did not even begin regretting his sins until he was too old to do them. That's NOT the case we're discussing. We're discussing someone who still has to battle the yetzer hara. I can't help but wonder if this person, who executed a long, slow, but ultimately successful plan, might get the mitzva of Teshuva retroactively, to the beginning of that plan, maybe even according to the Rambam. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 10:43:29 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:43:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200904174329.GB3095@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:33:32AM +0300, Moshe Zeldman via Avodah wrote: > If one should not say "starting YK I will never...", then how does that fit > with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the vidui is saying "and I > will never do X again"? I'm going to shift topics a little from what the Rambam says should be done to what experience (and 20th cent Mussar sefarim) has shown does work. Lots of diets I promised myself I would start right after the chagim never happened. So, I don't think there is much commitment in "starting YK I will never..." Maybe we should be following the incremental approach... Promising now to take steps that by Yom Kippur I would be up to not doing X again, and by Chanukah not doing X-1, and by Pesach, X-2, and by next YK... Again, not claiming you can read that into the Rambam. But it does fit the Rambam's requirements for vidui while still having more chance of success than expecitng to be able to permanently change habits and character on a dime. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. http://www.aishdas.org/asp The purpose of life Author: Widen Your Tent is to give it away. -- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -- Pablo Picasso From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 10:58:49 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:58:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200904175849.GC3095@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:45:46PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing > to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better > than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time > that's been taken from them. Speaking specifically of "echad hamarbeh. ve'echad hamam'it..." and not trying to fit more services into the same number of rooms in the same morning or other pandemic issues... The idea is usually invoked for those of us who abbreviate Pesuqei deZimra in order to say fewer peraqim of Tehillim in the same time the minyan is saying more of them. Not to save time, but to spend more thought and similar time on fewer actions (in this case, speech). BUT... The past century has seen a HUGE shrinkage (sorry for the oxymoron) in attention spans. So, the more likely alternative of 15 minutes of rushed mumbeling may be better than an hour of mumbling while one's mind wanders. For many people, even on Yamim Noraim. May even have a net minus in the minimal kavanah of a rushed mumble. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] http://www.aishdas.org/asp isn't complete with being careful in the laws Author: Widen Your Tent of Passover. One must also be very careful in - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:48:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 14:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20200904184852.GD3095@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:49:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >> But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after >> hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's > Saturday delivery and you say nothing? Can it depend on who makes the decision? What if I ask one set of people to deliver my package, but another set of people make it impossible for them to get into the warehouse / vehicle on Sunday? And if I could guess as much that even if they wanted to deliver on Sunday it's not really in their power to do so? :-)BBii! -Micha From seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:25 2020 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2020 10:31:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avos - Shepherds Message-ID: The Avos ? Forefathers - (and Moshe Rabbeinu and Dovid HaMelech and others) were shepherds. Did they eat sheep? The few times when eating from the flock is mentioned, it seems to be goats (eg, Rivka feeding Yitzchak). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Sep 6 13:24:42 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:24:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Use a Public Grill? Message-ID: >From https://www.kosher.com/lifestyle/can-one-use-a-public-grill-1259 [https://www.kosher.com/resized/open_graph/s/h/shutterstock_442567648_banner.jpg] Can One Use a Public Grill? | Lifestyle | Kosher.com Shailah of the Week by Rabbi Zvi Nussbaum Rabbinic Coordinator, Kosher Hotline Administrator for the Orthodox Union Since a campground grill has been used to cook non-kosher foods (non-kosher meats and fish...), it may not be used unless it is properly kashered. The only way to kasher a gr... www.kosher.com Since a campground grill has been used to cook non-kosher foods (non-kosher meats and fish...), it may not be used unless it is properly kashered. The only way to kasher a grill top is with libun gamur (heating until the entire surface of the grill top rack becomes red hot). This can be accomplished by submerging the surface of the grill into burning charcoal. Even if the grill was used within the past 24 hours to cook non-kosher, and even if the grill had not been cleaned, it may still be kashered in this manner, since the intense heat will burn up all non-kosher residue and taste. There is no need to tovel the grill (immerse the grill in a mikvah), since it does not belong to you. It is owned by the park. Instead of kashering the grill, an easier option is to bring along your own grill top and a couple of bricks. If the non-kosher grill can be lifted out of the way, the kosher grill may be put in its place, balanced on the bricks. If you purchase a new grill top, it must be toveled before it is used. A third option is to double wrap your food with two layers of aluminum foil. Once properly wrapped, they may be placed directly on the non-kosher grill. In this case, it is better to clean the grill top first, or let the coals burn off the grease, before placing the double-wrapped food on top. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Sep 6 13:49:28 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:49:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pas Yisroel Message-ID: See https://www.crcweb.org/Pas%20Yisroel%20article%20.pdf Pas Yisroel during Aseres Y?mei Teshuvah Pas Yisroel By: Rabbi Dovid Cohen Administrative Rabbinic Coordinator, cRc Background In the times of the Mishnah, and possible even earlier, Chazal www.crcweb.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Sep 7 04:02:28 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:02:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] 10PM Slichot Message-ID: Anyone know why R' Moshe in O"C 2:105 didn't suggest pre-shacharit slichot rather than 10Pm slichot as a stand in for chatzot (midnight) slichot on the first night of slichot when there was a clear and present danger? Kvct 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 michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 11:26:57 2020 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:26:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another example, seen via this week's ShMOT: Deu 31 :26. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolberg at yebo.co.za Mon Sep 7 03:41:23 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 12:41:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 Message-ID: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> "And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. And so paskened the Geonei Olam for about [the last] eighty years. And this is the essential halocha." I have several questions about this. 1. Surely the use of Yiddish translations was very common and accepted? 2. Is this a response to the Reform use of German translations? 3. While the translation of the Shema might be problematic, translation of shemoneh esrei and brochas is surely not the same issue? From zev at sero.name Tue Sep 8 08:01:13 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 11:01:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10PM Slichot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0c0a2053-cf70-2689-d048-d3d3a7c9eab4@sero.name> On 7/9/20 7:02 am, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Anyone know why R? Moshe in O?C 2:105 didn?t suggest pre-shacharit > slichot rather than 10Pm slichot as a stand in for chatzot (midnight) > slichot on the first night of slichot when there was a clear and present > danger? The teshuva isn't about the first night, it's about all the days of selichos, and the situation is that it's impossible to do it either at midnight *or* before dawn. He takes it for granted that selichos must be said at night, Kumi Roni Valayla, and at an Eis Ratzon, which means any time between midnight and dawn, and says the minhag to do it at the end of the night, before dawn, is for convenience. So he reluctantly allows it after the first third of the night, with the proviso that it must be publicised that this is a hora'as sha'ah. Why doesn't he even consider doing it in the morning after daylight? I can think of two possibilities: Perhaps because selichos must be at night; or perhaps because people have to go to work and can't fit selichos in at their normal time for shacharis, and it's already posited in the question that for some reason they can't start earlier. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781 zev at sero.name "May this year and its curses end May a new year and its blessings begin" From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 11:43:48 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 14:43:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dates from Ancient Genes and Koseves Message-ID: <20200908184348.GA9440@aishdas.org> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/07/world/middleeast/israel-judean-dates-agriculture.html KETURA, Israel The plump, golden-brown dates hanging in a bunch just above the sandy soil were finally ready to pick. They had been slowly ripening in the desert heat for months. But the young tree on which they grew had a much more ancient history sprouting from a 2,000-year-old seed retrieved from an archaeological site in the Judean wilderness. Quick, can someone get the volume of these things before Yom Kippur? Kidding aside.... Do people think that the shiur of a kekoseves should be re-assessed, if necessary, based on this newly available data? RYBS, and his version of R Chaim's argument against Radziner tekheiles (or his argument against assuming orez = rice) would imply we don't. Halakhah can only be founded upon mesorah, not scientific data. My summary of that section of Nefesh haRav is at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n073.shtml#12 Anyone want to provide meqoros for other opinions? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... http://www.aishdas.org/asp ... but you're the pilot. Author: Widen Your Tent - R' Zelig Pliskin - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Sep 8 17:48:57 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 00:48:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] directed donations Message-ID: Question someone I know got concerning a contribution: Do you want your donation to the shul to be ?????? ???? ??? Response: I?d go with anonymous and pray that hkbh directs his accountant to allocate it to where it?s most needed. As a matter fact maybe that should be the inscription Thoughts? Kvct 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 llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 9 05:50:41 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 12:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 565:5) writes that the ?Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim? (thirteen attributes of mercy, Shemos 34:6-7) may not be recited unless there is a minyan. When these pesukim are recited in the context of prayer, they have the elevated status of a ?davar she?bikedusha,? like Kaddish or Kedusha, that may only be said in the presence of a minyan. The Mishnah Berurah (581:4) writes that Selichos that mention the Yud Gimmel Middos may be said, provided that those lines are skipped. If one prefers to say the Yud Gimmel Middos, he may do so if he recites them with the trop (cantillation) used for krias haTorah, as that indicates that it is not being recited as a tefillah (M?B 565:12). Mishnah Berurah also adds that any Selichos that are written in Aramaic should be skipped. The basis for this is the Gemara (Sotah 33a), in which Rebbi Yochanan states that angels do not deliver prayers that were recited in Aramaic, but when praying with a minyan one does not need the assistance of angels. Hashem?s presence is in the midst of the minyan and there is no need for angelic intervention. The Mishnah Berurah concludes, if there is no minyan at the beginning of Selichos, Kaddish is not said after Ashrei. Instead, the group should begin reciting Selichos. When the tenth man arrives, the congregation should recite three pesukim together, recite Kaddish and then continue from where they left off. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Sep 10 05:44:42 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:44:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When to Say Se;lichos Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. What is preferable? To wake up early and recite Selichos before dawn (a.k.a. alos hashachar, which is 72 minutes before sunrise), or to stay up late and recite Selichos after chatzos (midnight)? What about saying selichos after alos or after neitz hachama (sunrise)? A. Rav Yitzchak Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Yoma 22a) writes that the preferred time to recite Selichos is before dawn. This can be inferred from the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 3:4) who writes that it is customay to awake at night and recite Selichos until the morning. In addition, Mishnah Berurah (581:1) writes that the end of the night is an eis rotzon (a propitious time when G-d is receptive to prayer), implying that the early mornoing is the most appropriate time for Selichos. Finally, the She?arim Metzuyanim B?Halacah (Yoma 22a) notes that Selichos recited in the early morning is more effective, since it is recited through greater sacrifice; it is more difficult to wake up early than to stay up late. May Selichos be rected after sunrise? Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Divrei Si?ach, vol. 134) holds that it is preferable to recite Selichos after Chatzos than to recite Selichos later in the day after sunrise. On the otherhand, Rav Elyashav and Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach take an oposite opinion and write that it is better to recite Selichos in the daytime (even after sunrise) than to say it after chatzos (quoted in MB Dirshu MB, 581:1). Similiary, the Aruch Hashulchan writes that it has been customary to say selichos in the morning after sunrise for many generations. On the other hand, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt?l (Igros Moshe OC, 2:105) writes that kabalistically, the period after chatzos is as much an eis ratzon as early dawn, and for this reason, for many generations, it has been customary to recite Selichos at night after chatzos. This is also the opinion of the Minchas Elazar (the previous Munkatcher Rebbi), as recorded in Divrei Torah (141:76). Even those who recomend saying selichos in early morning before sunrise agree that on the first night of Selichos, on Motzei Shabbos, it is preferable to recite Selichos after Chatzos. This is because we wish to combine the merit of Shabbos together with the first Selichos. Therefore, we begin Selichos after Chatzos, and do not wait for the early morning (Chashukei Chemed, ibid.). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 15:12:12 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:12:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 In-Reply-To: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> References: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> Message-ID: <20200910221212.GB12180@aishdas.org> Sidenote: This se'if was recently studied by Arukh haShulchan Yomi. If you want to join us learning AhS Yomi, see the tools -- calendar, text, RYGB's YouTube playlist -- at http://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi ! AhS Yomi covers OC and the applicable portions of YD. (From egg spots to aveilus.) On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:41:23PM +0200, wolberg via Avodah wrote: >> And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the Shema and >> Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. >> And so paskened the Geonei Olam for about [the last] eighty years. And >> this is the essential halocha." ... > 1. Surely the use of Yiddish translations was very common and accepted? For women, yes. In fact, there is a script called Vaibrteitch because translations were in general considered for women. ("Women's Translation". "Teitch" evolved from the language name "Deutch".) Vaibrteitch is different than Rashi script. See examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaybertaytsh > 2. Is this a response to the Reform use of German translations? Likely. That bit about how they used to know Hebrew better is suspiciously post-facto sounding. Maybe when translating to another Semitic language, or to Greek using a millenia old tradition of Hebrew to Greek equivalences, we could have done better than we can to English. However, 600 years ago, translating to German, French or Spanish... No matter how well you know Hebrew, there is simply no close parallel to translate words to. A personal favorite when teaching Mussar is "yir'ah". Yir'ah is a range from awe to fear. Maybe the closest is "awareness of the magnitude of what you're facing" -- whether with admiration (awe) or thinking about risk (fear) or in another way. But because we are thinking "awe or fear" instead of a single concept, we cannot think about the middah of yir'as Shamayim in a fully authentic way. It's not two thing with an "or", or with a second thought about how they're related. It's a single territory that should be part of our gut's language about how we're feeling at a given point in time. In any case, it is true that real translation is impossible. I would faster *guess* that a machloqes about how close a translation may be got closed because the response to Reform forced our hand to choose one shitah over the other. > 3. While the translation of the Shema might be problematic, translation > of shemoneh esrei and brochas is surely not the same issue? Well, we cannot translation "Barukh Atah Hashem", at least not "barukh" or "Hashem" in any precise way. So, maybe not. I am not sure people really know what they mean when they say "blessed". But what is Barukh? - Source of increase - Maximally increased - May You -- in the form of the expression of Your Will in this world -- be incresed - An intentional ambiguity of all of the above? And sheim havayah pronounced as Adnus... - The Atemporal - The All-Compassionate - The Transcendent - The L-rd of All Etc... I would faster think the baqashos would be okay more than berakhos in general. Or maybe the body of the berakhah until the chasimah. As long as the translation is close enough so that it opens and wraps up with me'ein hachasimah. But lemaaseh, the AhS says that's not what "we hold". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. http://www.aishdas.org/asp - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:50:27 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Torah Musings] Why Did the Holocaust Happen Message-ID: <20200911175027.GA23887@aishdas.org> A survey by R Gil Student. https://www.torahmusings.com/2020/09/why-did-the-holocaust-happen/ (And a couple of the comments on his post.) :-)BBii! -Micha Torah Musing Why Did the Holocaust Happen? Posted by: Gil Student Posts Sep 7, 2020 As I reviewed the weekly Torah reading for this past Shabbos, which includes the tochekhah (Deut. 28), I was taken back to my teenage years, reading it one Saturday or Sunday afternoon and seeing Jewish history in it. To a non-religious Jewish teenager in the 1980's who grew up among survivors, the question of God in the Holocaust was not a faith issue that could be ignored. Reading the biblical text with minimal commentary (I think I used S.L. Gordon's secular commentary), I saw a prophecy that sin would lead to the kind of inhuman devastation seen in the Holocaust, a prediction that was fulfilled thousands of years later. To me, the Holocaust was not an impediment to faith but a convincing proof of Judaism's truth claims. Not everyone sees it that way. Many are offended by the very claim that the Holocaust was a divine punishment, although often due to objections that miss important discussions in traditional Jewish literature which we will mention briefly below. The issues are so sensitive, and during the 1970's and 1980's in particular the denominational conflicts were so strong, that unnecessarily forceful rhetoric turned an issue of faith into a weapon. In my opinion, a legitimate theological view has been dismissed due to heightened sensitivities and denominational politics. I. Five Approaches to the Holocaust Modern Orthodoxy has developed two main theologies of the Holocaust: 1) Hester Panim - God hid His face, turned away, and let mankind unleash wanton violence. R. Norman Lamm takes this approach in his [51]"The Face of God: Thoughts of the Holocaust". It is important to note that God hides His face (Deut. 31:17) due to Jewish sins (ibid., 16). (Some claim that brief mentions of hester panim by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik in his Kol Dodi Dofek constitute his adoption of this approach, but see R. Reuven Ziegler, Majesty and Humility, p. 277 n. 4, where he dismisses this interpretation.) 2) Free Will - God allows mankind the free will to sin, which includes the ability to murder and torture others. R. Eliezer Berkovits advocates this approach in his Faith After the Holocaust. The alternative approaches generally discussed are: 3) Anti-Zionism - The Satmar Rebbe's argument that Zionism led to the Holocaust, in his [52]Al Ha-Ge'ulah Ve-Al Ha-Temurah. 4) Zionism - The Religious Zionist argument that the Holocaust paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel. This view is attributed to R. Zvi Yehudah Kook (see Aviezer Ravitzky, Messianism, Zionism and Jewish Religious Radicalism, pp. 126-128). 5) Secularization - R. Avigdor Miller popularized the view that the assimilation and secularization of Jews in the 150 years prior to the Holocaust resulted in this punishment. R. Norman Lamm quotes this from R. Miller's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 278-279) and you can find quotes on the subject by searching [53]TorasAvigdor.org for the word "Holocaust". (A reader informed me that R. Miller has a book on the subject was posthumously published -- [54]A Divine Madness: Rabbi Avigdor Miller's Defense of Hashem in the Matter of the Holocaust.) II. The Slabodka Holocaust Theology I would like to explore here the approach of a Holocaust victim, Rav Avraham Grodzinski, the mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva who perished in 1944. I will be blending in another important view of Rav Grodzinski, along with his son-in-law Rav Shlomo Wolbe's presentation of Rav Grodzinski's approach in Rav Wolbe's (anonymously published) book of outreach speeches given in the wake of the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars (originally published as Bein Sheshes Le-Asor, later republished as Olam Ha-Yedidus). Rav Grodzinski's approach is most similar to that of Rav Miller, which is not surprising since the latter studied in the Slabodka yeshiva. However, I am not sure that Rav Miller developed it in the same way as Rav Grodzinski and he certainly did not present it in the same sensitive way as Rav Wolbe. [55]Rav Avraham Grodzinski succeeded Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel ("The Alter") as mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva, when the latter moved to Israel and established a branch of the yeshiva in Chevron. Rav Grodzinski (a brother-in-law of Rav Ya'akov Kamenetsky) stayed in Europe to the end, suffering a martyr's death in the Kovno Ghetto in 1944. He sent his writings to his students in Israel, who together with [56]his surviving sons published them in 1963 as Toras Avraham, a brilliant book of profound Mussar thought presented in the style of Talmudic thinking. [57]Rav Shlomo Wolbe first published Bein Sheshes Le-Asor anonymously in 1975, although it is clearly in his style and was posthumously republished by the foundation to publish his writings. The book consists mainly of his outreach lectures throughout Israel, spurred by the renewed interest in Israel awakened by the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War. The chapter on the Holocaust, however, was prepared for a class at the Bais Ya'akov of Jerusalem (commonly known as BJJ). I assume that Rav Wolbe included this chapter because he believes that this issue is important to those seeking to grow in faith. Rav Wolbe begins with a story emphasizing the importance of finding meaning in your suffering. It is obvious, he says, that we must help others by alleviating their suffering in any way possible. However, faith teaches us that there is meaning in suffering, a lesson to be learned. Rav Wolbe continues that even when God hides His face from us, there are no accidents. Therefore we must examine our lives to see what God wants from us. This is true not just for individuals but for nations as a whole. Throughout, Rav Wolbe quotes mainly biblical verses to prove his points, although I can think of many Talmudic passages that would do likewise. The believer is strengthened from the fact that destruction and suffering do not occur by happenstance but rather come guided by divine providence after ample warning. The traditional Jewish texts of the Bible, Talmud and Midrash warn us of the horrific consequences of sin. Rav Wolbe highlights in particular the language of the Gemara (Kesubos 111a), while sidestepping the specific Talmudic context, of "If not, I (God) will abandon your flesh like the gazelles and like the hinds of the field." Due to sin, Jewish flesh will be hunted like animals. Nobody, Rav Wolbe continues, is allowed to decide for what reason the Holocaust happened to us unless he personally suffered himself. Only a victim can conduct this examination of the generation. As we will later see, Rav Grodzinski did not necessarily agree with this. Perhaps Rav Wolbe set this condition for rhetorical purposes. Regardless, with that introduction, Rav Wolbe then invokes Rav Grodzinski's Holocaust theology. III. Suffering and Sins The introduction to Toras Avraham (1978 second edition, p. 17) describes how Rav Grodzinski discussed at length with his students in the Kovno Ghetto the spiritual causes of the Holocaust. He listed twelve primary sins, or areas where we were lacking, and exhorted them to strengthen the Jewish people in these areas if they survived the war. Rav Grodzinski wrote all these talks down but the writings were lost in the war. [58]Rav Mordechai Zuckerman survived and recorded the twelve lackings from memory. They are: 1) Faith 2) Shabbos observance 3) Family purity 4) Kosher food 5) Charging interest 6) Torah education of children 7) Wasting time that could be used for Torah study 8) Loving your fellow Jew 9) Lovingkindness (chesed) 10) Making do with less (histapkus) 11) Trust in God 12) The land of Israel (I don't know what this means in this context). I do not know if Rav Grodzinski applied Talmudic statements to his contemporary events, such as "seven punishments come to the world due to seven sins" (Avos 5:8), or if he looked at specific types of suffering and found the "measure for measure" in them, or a combination of both methods or something else. Because his writings were lost, we lack insight into his specific methodology. Regardless, I appreciate his general approach, as described below, and recognize that he used it to reach specific conclusions, which I find worthy as areas to strengthen ourselves. Rav Wolbe adds to the above list the general secularization of the Jewish people that began with Emancipation and continued with the Jewish Enlightenment. This was accompanied by widespread abandonment of Jewish faith and practice. Historically, he claims, every period of "enlightenment" has ended with Jewish tragedy. The Holocaust continues that historical cycle. I believe that Rav Grodzinski's Holocaust theology is intimately connected with his theology of suffering. In a series of lectures in late 1936 and early 1937, Rav Grodzinski explored the unique value of suffering to the religious personality. It might be worthwhile noting that since childhood, Rav Grodzinski suffered great physical pain that he overcame through sheer force of personality. Rav Grodzinski begins by pointing out what we lost as a nation and as individuals by the cessation of prophecy (roughly) after the destruction of the First Temple. The prophets informed us of our sins, directed us to the proper behavior, guided us to spiritual recovery. When prophecy ceased, we lost that guidance but were not left without any religious compass. Suffering shows us where we must focus. God punishes us measure for measure. Therefore, we can look at our suffering, our punishment, as a guide for where we need to improve our behavior. To some degree, suffering is more effective than prophecy. "The removal of Achashverosh's ring (for the sealing of Haman's decree) was more effective than the forty-eight prophets and the seven prophetesses who prophesied on behalf of the Jewish people. They all were unable to bring the Jewish people to repentance, but the removal of Achashverosh's ring brought them to repentance" (Megillah 14a). Additionally, suffering empowers you to find your own path to redemption, without the need for a third party, a prophet. Suffering not only directs you to improve but encourages you, offers you the incentive of freedom from suffering. Rav Grodzinski adds (p. 54) that suffering guides not only the sinners but others, as well. When we see someone suffering and understand the sin that caused it, we learn a very persuasive lesson about what behavior we should avoid. This is true also about the educational value of nations making flawed decisions that seal their fate. The suffering of nations teaches us what national mistakes to avoid (cf. Zephaniah 3:6-7). In Rav Grodzinski's view, a wise and learned person, steeped in Talmud and Midrash, can examine the suffering of the Holocaust to identify its underlying spiritual causes and learn from them. After conducting a careful examination, Rav Grodzinski reached his conclusions (unfortunately, his thought process was recorded in writing but lost) and beseeched his students to work to fix these spiritual problems. IV. Common Objections 1) Rav Wolbe concludes with a common question: Why did righteous people suffer in the Holocaust? He quotes Rav Grodzinski as explaining that the more righteous someone is, the harsher he is judged. R. Akiva suffered from Roman torture and murder because, we are told, "this intention arose before" God (Menachos 29b). What is that intention? Rashi (Gen. 1:1) says, "At first God intended to create the world under the attribute of strict justice, but He realized that the world could not thus endure and therefore gave priority to mercy combined with justice." R. Akiva and the other righteous individuals are judged with the initial intent, pure justice. Even without Rav Wolbe's interpretation of this passage, we see elsewhere that the righteous are judged by a hairbreadth (Yevamos 121b), meaning that what for others constitutes a minor infraction for someone righteous is a big sin. Additionally, once God sends a punishment to a group (city, country, nation), that punishment applies to everyone whether righteous or wicked (Bava Kamma 60a). That is part of being a people -- our fates are connected. In fact, the Gemara (Shabbos 55a) says that when God punishes the Jewish people, He starts with the most righteous. 2) Were the people killed in the Holocaust guilty? - Even though no one can claim to be free from guilt, it is hard to imagine that anyone committed a sin so heinous as to deserve the horrors of the Holocaust. However, a sin committed by many is worse than a sin committed by an individual. Additionally, God is patient and allows time -- generations -- for the Jewish people to return before punishing us. When the punishment arrives, it is not just for that generation but for the previous generations as well (Ex. 20:5; Or Ha-Chaim, ad loc.). The generation of the Holocaust lived at the end of God's long wait for a return that never arrived. We do not stand in judgement of those who died or suffered in the Holocaust, nor do we say that they are more deserving than people before or after them. According to this understanding, they were individuals who lived at a time in history when the Jewish people was punished for its collective sins over many generations, for its long drift away from traditional Jewish observance. 3) Were the Nazis right to kill Jews? - This question is natural but odd. Natural because it emerges from the overall approach but odd because it has been discussed for centuries. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Teshuvah 6:5) asks why Pharaoh and the Egyptians were punished for enslaving the Jews when it was part of God's plan as told to Avraham (Gen. 15:13). Rambam answers that someone was destined to enslave the Jews but the Egyptians were guilty for being the ones to do it and therefore suffered ten plagues and drowning at the sea (see also Ramban, Gen. 15:14; I discuss it [59]here). May the Nazis suffer a hundred times ten plagues for their part in the Holocaust. None of this detracts from God's role in punishing the Jewish people through the guilty Egyptian hands. 4) What value is there in looking for other people's sins? - As discussed above, Rav Grodzinski sees value in learning what to fix. If we do not learn the spiritual lessons of history, we are condemned to repeat them. Additionally, Ramban (Sha'ar Ha-Gemul in Kisvei Ha-Ramban, vol. 2 p. 281; I discuss it [60]here) offers four reasons to engage in theodicy, even if ultimately you cannot fully understand God's ways. First, we benefit from gaining a better understanding of God's ways. More wisdom is good. Metaphysical knowledge, understanding God's actions, is always positive. Second, studying the ways in which God rewards and punishes people strengthens our belief. Our continuous exploration of God's ways reinforces within us His existence and His providence. Our greater understanding affords us confidence that explanations exist to even what we do not understand. Additionally, concludes Ramban, the obligations to fear and love God include a requirement to accept His judgment, to explain and justify God's decisions. This is a mitzvah of tziduk ha-din. 4) Is it sacrilegious to try to understand God's justice? - No, it is a mitzvah, as per the previous point. It also is not insulting to speak of punishment due to sins. When the Shakh writes about the Chmelnitzki massacres, he refers to what happened to us "due to our sins." When the Ra'avan writes about the First Crusade ([61]Kuntres Gezeiras Tatn"u), he specifically invokes the tokhecha, saying that they experienced all of the biblical curses. This is a strain of, if not the dominant strain in, traditional Judaism. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Ta'aniyos 1:3) calls it cruelty to fail to look for the sins that led to divine punishment. 5) Can anyone know God's reasons absent prophecy? - Rav Yitzchak Hutner ("Holocaust" -- A Study of the Term, and the Epoch it is Meant to Describe" in [62]Jewish Observer, October 1977, p. 9) writes: "One would have to be a navi or Tanna (a prophet or Talmudic sage) to claim knowledge of the specific reasons for what befell us; anyone on a lesser plane claiming to do so tramples in vain upon the bodies of the kedoshim who died Al Kiddush Hashem [as holy martyrs] and misuses the power to interpret and understand Jewish history." On the other hand, this same Rav Hutner gave an approbation to Rav Wolbe's book quoted above. Furthermore, it seems that Rav Grodzinski, himself a holy martyr, felt his method of analyzing suffering serves the function of prophecy in today's age. 6) Why does this usually ring so hollow? - When the Holocaust is discussed without sensitivity and empathy, the proposed explanations sound shallow and offensive. In my opinion, that is why Rav Wolbe began with a long introduction and invoked the conclusions of a Holocaust victim, Rav Grodzinski. Furthermore, many of the people offering explanations today either are, or sound like or are portrayed by the media as being, self-righteous fools. It is hard to take seriously someone whose analysis is shallow and only validates his regular message. If your answer to everything is female immodesty, you lack credibility to offer a thoughtful and nuanced answer. Rav Grodzinski does not face this challenge but some people may unfairly associate him with others who suffer that problem. There may be other reasons that this approach often rings hollow but these should suffice for our purposes. Personally, I benefited from this tokhecha approach which I intuited as a non-religious teenager. I am not certain which sins caused the Holocaust but I am open to honest, sensitive speculation as a way of learning from history, which I believe is that in which Rav Grodzinski and Rav Wolbe engaged. If this approach had been deemed theologically unacceptable, despite its impeccable pedigree, I don't know if I would be religious today. In my opinion, it is a shame to remove this approach from our theological toolbox due to politics and rhetoric from decades ago. ... 3 comments 1. Kovner Sep 8, 20 at 6:44 am You missed out on one more important approach. Read the classic introduction to Zichron Kodosh written by the author of Nesivos Sholom - RSN Barzovsky zt"l. The sefer was published once, and never reprinted. Also, the Toras Avrohom was published by a son - not sons - of RAG. Only one son did not perish. ... 3. Kovner Sep 9, 20 at 7:05 pm I'm not skilled to do so accurately and faithfully. Never the less, I'll venture to say that the central point is that it's all part of Hashem's Grand Plan of human history, and is beyond our comprehension. And therefore the most appropriate response is "Vayidom Aharon"... ... Copyright 2020 All rights reserved References 51. https://merrimackvalleyhavurah.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/the-face-of-god-thoughts-on-the-holocaust/ 52. http://www.mysatmar.com/docs/shite_hakdoshe/ 53. https://torasavigdor.org/ 54. https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Madness-Avigdor-Millers-Holocaust/dp/B00EF68V9C 55. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Grodzinski 56. https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/54188/harav-yitzchok-grodzinsky-recalls-the-last-moments-of-hagon-rav-elchonon-wasserman-hyd-before-his-murder.html 57. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Wolbe 58. https://www.jdn.co.il/breakingnews/1230669/ 59. https://www.torahmusings.com/2016/05/were-the-egyptians-right/ 60. https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/10/why-theodicy/ 61. https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34838&st=&pgnum=2&hilite= 62. https://agudah.org/the-jewish-observer-vol-12-no-8-october-1977chesvan-5738/ From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Sat Sep 12 10:18:12 2020 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 17:18:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Has anyone seen litereature about the following Issues when Davening BiYehidut (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. (2) If one says the piyut of the Avoda after his private Musaf shmoneh Esrei, can he fall korim, what about Aleinu Shanah Tovah, Beri'ah u-metukah! Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Sep 13 20:36:29 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2020 23:36:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 Message-ID: . asked several questions about Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4, who wrote: > And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the > Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. Spoiler alert: I have several problems with this Aruch Hashulchan, and I suspect that (as R' Wolberg suspects), the AhS had ulterior reasons for writing this (such as the inroads that Reform was making via their translations) and could not have really meant it l'halacha. In any case, there are other poskim who do allow translations. I will begin by giving my own translation of this section of AhS, so that if anyone disagrees with my understanding of what he said, they can bring it to my attention. I will break it into several numbered pieces for easier reference. >>> 1) Know that this [halacha] that Krias Shema and Tefilla may be said in any language - this is certainly when one translates really the entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh into the other language. For otherwise, it would not constitute Shema and Tefilla. 2) According to that, this law does not apply except in the time of the Mishna and Gemara, for they knew our language well, and they were able to translate it. 3) But now, it is well-known that we have a number of uncertainties in explaining the words, and the commentators are divided about it. For example, how do we translate "totafos"? Similarly, the pasuk "Shema Yisrael" has various explanations even of its simple meaning. Likewise in the section about tzitzis, some explain it [the word "tzitzis"] in the sense of "looking" [from the root tzadi yud tzadi], and some explain it as "going" [from yud tzadi aleph]. Same for the word "p'sil" and many [other words] like it. 4) Behold, the essential Name of Havay' - we don't know how to translate it correctly! There are those who translate it as Nitzchi [Eternal], and some translate it as Kol-Yachol [Almighty], and there is no translation at all for "Was and Is and Will Be", which is the real Name Havay', so they equate the translation of the Name Havay' with the Name Elokim. 5) [Here he says something about two very different ways of translating "V'chara af", but I don't understand what he is saying.] 6) And therefore, nowadays it is forbidden to recite Krias Shema or Tefilla or any brachos except in Lashon Hakodesh, and so have the Geonei Olam paskened for about eighty years now, and this is the bottom-line halacha. >>> The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it? He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists? According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty AND Was/Is/WillBe? In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3: 1) It seems in my humble opinion that there is an established halacha by which one can get out of any questionable bracha acharona. For example, one is unsure if he said a bracha acharona or not. Or if he *needs* to make a bracha acharona or not. There is a way to extricate himself from this safek. 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167. 3) If so, one can say "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, boray nefashos etc. ..." If he was obligated in this bracha, then he is yotzay with this. And if he didn't need this bracha, then he has *not* uttered the Name of Heaven in vain, because there is no mention of the Name at all. Look, you can say "Rachamana" a hundred times! 4) Or similar things with other brachos. You should think in your heart that if you need the bracha then it is [being said] for the sake of a bracha; and if not, then it's just talking. 5) I have done this myself several times when drinking hot drinks. The most obvious thing from this section is that the Aruch Hashulchan personally believes that a bracha CAN be said in Aramaic. You might respond that he makes an exception for Aramaic, which is arguably a Lashon Hakodesh. But look again at the AhS's requirements for an adequate translation of Hashem's Name - which is an absolute necessity when saying a bracha - and I don't think "Rachamana" conveys any sense of "Was and Is and Will Be". Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude someone from a partial translation. For example, one could translate most of the words, and leave the difficult words untranslated, which is almost exactly how ArtScroll handles the cited case of "totafos": "Bind them as a sign upon your arm and let them be tefillin between your eyes." If I'm understanding Siman 62 correctly, the AhS wants translation to be all-or-nothing, and since all is not possible, he feels justified in banning all translations. But in Siman 202, a partial translation is exactly what he is doing, by translating the initial words of the bracha, and then continuing with the regular Hebrew text. By the way, it seems that Rav Moshe Feinstein agrees that a translation must be all-or-nothing. See Igros Moshe OC 4:40:27, which is two paragraphs. In the first paragraph, he rejects the AhS's suggestion of using Brich Rachamana to get out of problems, precisely because you can't mix languages in that manner. (It's not at all clear to me why we're not allowed to mix languages, but it is very clear that Rav Moshe rejects it.) In the second paragraph he explains that even if one would say the entire bracha in Aramaic, that too would not resolve a safek bracha problem, because whereas the AhS had no compunctions against saying Rachamana a hundred times, *we* are noheg to avoid saying the Name in vain even when translated. As an aside, there are several teshuvos in which Rav Moshe explains his views on how to translate Hashem's Name for brachos in other languages. See for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:272, where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana, "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ... And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe, whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include concepts like "Was and Is and Will Be". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Sep 14 05:43:25 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:43:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. What is the minimum amount of shofar blowing that one is required to hear? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. In three different places the Torah commands us to blow shofar in the month of Tishrei: Twice in relation to Rosh Hashanah, and once in reference to Yom Kippur (Yovel ? Jubilee). The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 34a) connects the three verses and derives that each time the shofar is blown, it must be blown three times. The Gemara also proves that every blowing of the shofar actually consists of three parts: A Tekiah (a long blow), followed by a Teruah (a broken blow), followed by a Tekiah. This makes for a total of nine blows. The mitzvah is to blow the shofar nine times following this pattern. Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah However, because the Gemara records a disagreement as to the sound of the Teruah, we blow three variations. This amounts to 30 blows. 3X ? Tekiah ? Shevarim Teruah ? Tekiah=(12) 3X ? Tekiah ? Shevarim? Tekiah=(9) 3X ? Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah=(9) This is the minimum amount of shofar blows that one should hear to fulfill their obligation. If even this is too much, at the very least one should make sure to hear at least ten blasts. (See Mishnah Berurah 586:22 & 600:7). Tekiah ? Shevarim Teruah ? Tekiah=(4) Tekiah ? Shevarim ? Tekiah=(3) Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah=(3) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 18:29:14 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 21:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur Message-ID: . R' Aryeh Frimer asked: > Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when > Davening BiYehidut > (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but > perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la > Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head: Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice. Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 06:38:38 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:38:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Q. Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 565:5) writes that the "Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim" > (thirteen attributes of mercy, Shemos 34:6-7) may not be recited unless there is a > minyan. When these pesukim are recited in the context of prayer, they have the > elevated status of a "davar she'bikedusha," like Kaddish or Kedusha, that may only > be said in the presence of a minyan. I actually traced this back to its source - a new obsession of mine. It's a Tur in 565 (Hil. Ta'anis). "Rav Nosson writes there's no Minhag for an individual to say the 13 attributes." (Excuse the stilted word-for-word translation). The Tur then seems to make it clear that he's quoting this to ensure people don't find this Rav Nosson and pasken like it: "I don't know what the problem is since it's like saying Psukim, since the Chachamim only say (not to say w/o a Minyan) a Dovor Shebikdusha like Kaddish, Kedusha and Borchu" (Who is this Rav Nosson? The only Rishon I could find by this name was the Oruch.) The Darkei Moshe injects (on Rav Nosson's statement) saying "our Minhag is (for individuals) to say it, but not during the Shmoneh Esre. The Mahr"iv quoting the O"Z says individuals should not say Selichos." (I.e. they used to say Selichos on Ta'anis during Chazoras haShatz. Actually, we Yekkes still do.) See it online at https://www.sefaria.org.il/Tur%2C_Orach_Chaim.565.1?with=Darchei%20Moshe - for those who can see the Hebrew: , ???? ???? ?????:??:? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?"? ???? [?] ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???: [?] ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????"? ??? ?"? ???? ????? ???? ?????? So the Tur and the Darkei Moshe both agree that an individual can say the "Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim". The dissenting opinion says to skip Selichos altogether. >From there it's all downhill. The common denominator being that all Nosie Keilim seem to pasken like Rav Nosson and try to find workarounds. I find this fascinating. I wonder if the Tur now regrets ever mentioning this opinion. :-) Note that this is all mentioned in Hil. Ta'anis. In 581 where they discuss Selichot during Elul, they ignore this topic completely. KVT - Danny From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Sep 16 10:42:32 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:42:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] practical and detailed shir for Baalei tokaya and makri Message-ID: <089901d68c50$c22d7680$46886380$@touchlogic.com> Very good. Starts basic, but gets better.. >From Rabbi Mordechai Scheiner, rosh Kollel Ohr Yosef - toronto https://zoom.us/rec/share/xyvl_GE2lRo5GmE02A0XVqL4TEp3Kq4RqYfPZ4zAbezsR4D1c7G8LaIToB8dxYbe.0vgzJDhv9dDlViCP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 13:40:15 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:40:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <2110840790.2504917.1600178620157@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20200914185208.GC25700@aishdas.org> <2110840790.2504917.1600178620157@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20200917204015.GA749@aishdas.org> Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT: > Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim > we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is > problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out sifrei > Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos given to > 12 year olds, etc... > This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked how > we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to celebrate a > siyum that itself is iffy. > But when I wrote that, few of us really thought that Israel would be > closing down for the chagim, and that ever minute of shul in nearly all > of chu"l is increasing medical risk. So now we're talking about invoking > heteirim to party at the peril of the medically fragile in the community. > I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the > bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this year's > leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a Simchas > Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can anyone argue > for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that psychological need for > the majority of people? On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 2:03pm GMT, R Harry Maryles replied on Areivim: > It's true that most Shuls had a pretty big gap in their weekly Kriyas > HaTorah and that many Parshios were missed. But some Shuls hae made them > up. In a few cases no Parshios were missed. For example in my son's > neighborhood of Ramat bet Shemesh which is over 90% observant, my son > did KhT every Shabbos from his balcony with a Minyan made of of all of > his neighbors within earshot. (Don't know how he arrived at calling this > Teffilah B'Tzibur, but that was his Beshas Ha'dechak Psak.) > IIUC, Doing Hakafos on ST is a Minahg of the Tzibur, not the Yachid. > It is based on what the Klal as a whole does. The celebration of > completing yearly cycle with Hakafos is therefore appropriate this year > just like every year. But only along the lines I suggested because of > the pandemic. There are cases where every parashah was leined beause the members of the minyan can't disband anyway -- like in a nursing home or on an army base. But I fear you presented a false dichotomy. Yes, leining and therefore the siyum on leining we celebrate on ST are about the tzibur. But I wouldn't assume that means the global tzibur. After all, there was even a time when annual leining wasn't a universal norm. I had presented a third option, because I had assumed a neighorhood tzibbur. With all the modern complications now that most communities have shenei batei din ba'ir, as we put it WRT the tzibbur accepting Shabbos. But whether your town, your shul, or something else, that I didn't have a position on. So as I saw it, if no minyan in town leined the whole seifer Torah betzibbur, how is that community making a siyum? Shouldn't the shul making the party include at least person completing the text being mesayeim? In any case, there are at least those three possibilities, and we only agree on ruling out the first one, the yachid. But my point on Areivim, just like the point I made here to begin with, was more about most of the minhagim for celebrating Simchas Torah are on the defensive. We lein at night. (At least most of us do.) We take out more sifrei Torah than we read from. We give way too many people aliyos. We are relying on heteirim on a slew of dinim about kavod ST and qeri'as haTorah. We need a certain level of justification for it. We don't have to just say that ST celebrates someone else's completion of the Torah -- we need to be able to argue that's true strongly enough to justify those heteirim. Or, that we need ST for our mental health strongly enough to qualify as justification. Which is an approach I am more sympathetic to than saying I am dancing in my shul with a seifer Torah to celebrate the men of Nachal Yehudah (eg) and in the senior living facilities a couple of miles outside our eiruv at Daughter of Miryam completing a cycle of leining. Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries http://www.aishdas.org/asp are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 18 05:05:52 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:05:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Is one permitted to fast on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. One is not permitted to fast on Rosh Hashanah because Rosh Hashanah is a Yom Tov. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (OC 597:1) rules that one must eat, drink and rejoice on Rosh Hashanah. Nonetheless, unlike other Yomim Tovim, one should not overindulge, lest the solemn nature of the day will be obscured. However, there were Rishonim who held that it is permissible to fast during the daytime because Rosh Hashanah is a day of teshuva. Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l said that his great-grandfather, the Beis HaLevi, would fast both days. In fact, there were those who would fast even on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah because they considered the importance of teshuva on this day to be on the level of pikuach nefesh (life threatening), which overrides the requirement to eat a Shabbos seuda. Although in practice we follow the Shulchan Aruch and do not fast on Rosh Hashanah, the Mishnah Berurah (584:5) makes a distinction between Rosh Hashanah which falls on Shabbos, and Rosh Hashanah which falls on a weekday, as follows: When Rosh Hashanah falls on a weekday, we are permitted to extend the davening into the afternoon, while if Rosh Hashanah is on Shabbos, we are required to finish davening before chatzos (halachic midday) so as not to fast past the morning. As such, if one expects their shul to finish davening on Shabbos after chatzos, it is best to drink a tea or coffee in the morning before going to shul, to avoid fasting inappropriately on Shabbos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 18 05:17:03 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:17:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Laws & Customs: Month of Tishrei during the Corona period Message-ID: For those in quarantine, davening by themselves or in outside Minyanim Please see https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/groupsioattachments/14569/76906693/102/0?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJECNKOVMCCU3ATNQ&Expires=1600431735&Signature=d1788QfnWQyWHF1xjnl7Zn59EJg%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3D%22Tishrei+During+Corona.pdf%22 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Mon Sep 21 05:50:14 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 13:50:14 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? Message-ID: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT: > Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim > we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is > problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out > sifrei Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos > given to > 12 year olds, etc... BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So while it might be that the Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah out). Note that that also means that the siyum for the year, even in a normal year, is not complete (or about to be completed) when the sifrei Torah are taken out at night, as the first hakafos take place (at latest) on the night of Simchat Torah, and yet the finishing of the yearly reading only occurs the next day. Note the reason why I say at latest is because many Sephardim (although not all) have the custom of doing seven sets of seven hakafot which mean they do hakafot on Shmini Atzeret as well (three sets on Shmini Atzeret, to correspond with the three services, three sets on Simchat Torah, to correspond with the three services, and one after Simchat Torah). > This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked > how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to > celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy. There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah, something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah. Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations and to call to others to make a feast. *And further it is the custom* in our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every place according to its custom. *And further we are accustomed* to circle with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with the lulav *and all is because of joy* *Further we are accustomed* to call all the lads to the sefer Torah, ... and in every place according to their custom. *Further we are accustomed* to finish the Torah even with a child oleh..." That is, while you appear to be saying that *because* we make a siyum on the Torah *therefore* we do all these other halachically iffy customs, even the Rema does not say this. To the extent he gives a reason, it is "because of joy", and all the customs are as a result of *that* category. Which makes sense, because making a siyum justifies a seudah being considered a seudas mitzvah (and may justify the name of Simchas Torah, instead of second day Shmini Atzeret), and there are references in the gemara that seem to justify the making of a feast for a siyum, although the derivation is not really that straightforward, nowhere does it allow any of the other behaviour that might be Halachically iffy. On the other hand, simcha is a mitzvah d'orisa on yom tov, and indeed according to Sukkah 48a " It was taught in a braita: [Devarim 16:16] "and it will be completely joyous" this is to include the night of the last day of Yom Tov [lelei yom tov acharon]" Now of course, that is referring in the Torah to Shmini Artzeret, and it is interesting that in chutz l'aretz, we seem to have taken the especially joyous obligation of that d'orisa mitzvah, and attached it to what is the night of yom tov achron for us, which in fact is only minhag avosaynu b'yadanu. But be that as it may, it seems to me that, as the Rema says, the justification for all of these minhagim is simchas yom tov, and particularly the extra simcha of the final days of yom tov, and that they are independent of one another, so that the aspects related to making a siyum on the Torah are independent of taking the sifrei Torah out, and of doing the hakafos, and of singing and dancing. And if anything, the minhag of having a siyum on completing a full yearly reading of the Torah could perhaps be seen as being caused by the obligation to create extra joy on Shmini Atzeret/Simchas Torah, and not the other way around. We have arranged our schedules so that we have the joy of completely the Torah on this day, as Torah learning is in and of itself a form of joy (see eg the introduction to the Eglei Tal), so we arrange them to coincide. > I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the > bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this > year's leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a > Simchas Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can > anyone argue for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that > psychological need for the majority of people? But again, this assumes that all the minhagim on Simchas Torah are a direct result of the siyum, which I do not believe is the case. It is important to have Simchas Yom Tov, and to do what we can to maximise simchas Yom Tov, and if the siyum part is not possible, but the other parts are, then the other parts should be done. <> And the classic justification for these heterim is that the aseh of simcha is docheh, as per the Rema. However, because we are taking about simcha that is required by the Torah, it is linked to and part and parcel with simcha with the Torah - without the Torah there would be no obligation of such simcha, so simcha that is antithetical to the Torah, ie does not encompass kavod haTorah, is not justified. Which is why I am not even convinced that it is a tzibbur versus yachid thing. Would there be a problem if a Rav, who happened to live above the shul, took out the sefrei Torah and did hakafos with them with his family around an empty shul, because he was restricted by Covid requirements to his bubble, which did not contain a minyan? I'm not sure there would. There are potential issues with leining, and even more so with making birchas haTorah on such layning, but do we consider hakafos as a dvar shebekedusha that absolutely has to have a minyan? It is post gemara, so it is not so clear it can be a dvar shebekedusha, which might need to have been instituted by the Anshei Knesset Hagadola or at least not to be post Ravina and Rav Ashi (that might also turn on whether you follow the Aruch haShulchan and the Rokach, who hold that kaddish was instituted by the Anshei Knesset HaGadola, and that is what justifies its status as a dvar shebekedusha, or whether you follow the Shibbolei Ha-Leket and the teshuvas HaGeonim which seem to suggest that the whole institution of kaddish within prayer was instituted by the Geonim (and if so, whether a takana of the Geonim is and remains binding or it does not)). <> But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as something of an obligation of the tzibbur (the tzibbur would seem to be needed in order to make sure that we are making the widow happy). So to the extent that it is dependent upon simcha, then that obligation remains, even if the minhagim of the tzibbur, ie the way the tzibbur traditionally performs such simcha, might not be possible at the present time, and hence is not an obligation. -Micha Gmar Tov Chana From doniels at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 03:16:13 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:16:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur Message-ID: . R' Aryeh Frimer asked: > Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when > Davening BiYehidut > (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but > perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la > Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. R' Akiva Miller answered: > No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head: > Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it > certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice. > Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is > mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there. In a nutshell, you can see it here on Sefaria: https://tinyurl.com/y2qgtuyx It's a Mishna in Nedirim 3:1, discussed in Talmud 23a, codified in Yoreh De'a 211 to which the Ba'er Heitev decides that as long as one said it loud enough to be heard to one's own ears, it's valid. None of the commentators along the way mention publicity. The only issue they have is "Devorim She'B'Leiv" if it's whispered or thought. Along the way I learnt: You can say it ("just kidding about the Neder stuff") any time. Those who hold you don't have to say it right before making the Neder, don't give it an expiration date - IOW once a lifetime should be sufficient. Bottom line: If it works, you can chant the "futuristic" Kol Nidrei to yourself in an undertone. CLOR. Gmar Chasima Tova - Danny, not a Rabbi by any stretch of imagination. From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Sep 17 08:56:27 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:56:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Consumer Daf HaKashrus - Spices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I normally do not send out messages with attachments, but I could not locate this online. [See for attached PDF. -micha] From the pdf file > This article is an in-depth look at a specific category of vegetables: > spices. Spices refer to aromatic vegetable products used to season or > flavor foods. Less than 2% of food consumed in the United States are > spices, but what a difference that 2% makes! Without spices, all food > would be bland and unappetizing. > As mentioned, there are many spices exported by Israel, which create a > whole host of potential kashrus issues. All uncertified Israeli spices > present serious kashrus challenges in the form of tevel and shemitah. A > Mashgiach visiting a spice plant must be on the lookout for this. Because > of the aromatic and fragrant nature of spices, these spices will not > be batel in a mixture, as they are avida l'taama, added to mixtures > for taste, and anything which is added to a mixture for taste does not > become batel. This halachah is paskened by Rema in Yoreh Deah 98:8, > from the Gemara (Beitza 38b, Chulin 6a). See the attachment for much more. From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Sep 22 05:50:20 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:50:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Cheerios and Pas Yisroel Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Can one eat Cheerios during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva (ten days from Rosh Hashana to Yom Kippur) or Shabbos and Yom Tov for those who only eat Pas Yisroel on those days? What about other breakfast cereals? Must they be Pas Yisroel? A. There are differing opinions as to whether Cheerios is considered pas. The OU poskim do not consider it pas, because of the size of the individual pieces and the manner in which it is made. Likewise, wheat flake cereals are not considered ?bread-like? and therefore do not need to be pas Yisroel. Corn and Rice Cereals are, by definition, not bread items. See our Pas Yisroel List ? 5781 at OUKosher.org for OU certified Pas Yisroel brands and products. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 14:09:36 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200922210936.GD19252@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 11:36:29PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was > supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated > prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in > the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it? The SA often just echoes Chazal when the case is considered theoretical. So, if he didn't see people really trying to say Shema in la'az, the Mechaber wouldn't deal with the practical problems of trying to do so and just note that hypothetically, Chazal said it was mutar. > He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators > lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are > incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text > holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to > adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists? Or maybe just the right shade for each instance. If you get too nitpicky, you'll note that two different speakers of the same language have different memories and associations with many of their different words, and don't have bidiyuq the same things in mind when using them. Exact precision is a rabbit's hole to fall down. The question is defining "exact enough". Maybe exact enough to relay one out of multiple peshatim? WRT semitic languages, there are going to be much closer matches. So, davening in Aramaic seems much more doable than davening in a Romantic or Germanic language. > According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the > Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word > "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those > languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's > satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty > AND Was/Is/WillBe? Or maybe Moshe translated to a phrase. Or maybe, because Moshe knew which connotation of the sheim was primary in each context, he was able to pick the right translation for each. > In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my > translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3: ... > 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana, > Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe > (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written > in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167. But he pointedly does NOT say that it's a good idea even if it's not a a safeiq. So it would seem translations are only good enough when there is no better way to deal with the situation. You're comparing what he says here lekhat-chilah with his solution for a bedi'eved. BTW, I think berikh Rachmana is about fulfilling the purpose of the berachah without trying to fulfill Chazal's coinage. Like if we said you would be be meqabel ol Malkhus Shamayim by saying Shema in English, but not yotzei the actual mitzvah of Q"Sh. Because there is no "atah", and "of this bread" isn't "Who Brings bread out of the earth". It's not even a close paraphrase, never mind translation. It's not even an exactness of translation issue. Like, what if a native Hebrew speaker followed AhS OC 202 by saying "Barukh haRachaman Adon Melekh haOlam vehalachmaniah hazot". He would also avoid the risk of berakhaha levatalah and also that of the geneivah-like behavior of eating without a berakhah. > Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the > entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did > he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude > someone from a partial translation.... Why? Maybe someone would think "If I get a perfect enough translation just until 'al levavekha' or just the first pereq, at least he would be yotzei deOraisa." And SE is a different kind of problem than Shema, since its core is baqashos, not miqra. > for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:[1]72, > where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have > assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana, > "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and > established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common > among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ... > And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe, > whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include > concepts like "Was and Is and Will Be". BUT... only for some of the dinim of Sheimos. Not translations of tefillos. As you started your discussion of RMF -- he agrees with the AhS that such translations don't exist. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, http://www.aishdas.org/asp others come to love him very naturally, and Author: Widen Your Tent he does not need even a speck of flattery. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 14:23:23 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:23:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:50:14PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot > HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So while it might be that the > Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to > come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein > and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think > it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah > out).... I was taught the same line of reasoning besheim haGra. (I emailed RSMandel to double-check if it was from him, and did he have the mar'eh maqom. Got impatient holding off this reply for an answer.) >> This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked >> how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to >> celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy. > There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah, > something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and > Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be > related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the > way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah. > Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman > 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs: > > "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and > make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are > accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations > and to call to others to make a feast. *And further it is the custom* in > our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the > sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every > place according to its custom. *And further we are accustomed* to circle > with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with > the lulav *and all is because of joy*..." The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah shel torah* venohagim...") And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah". And since the Rama told you the simchah in question is that of the siyum, I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum, and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a community that year. >> Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either >> way. > But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as > something of an obligation of the tzibbur... Yes, but we don't take the sifrei Torah out at night for any other yom tov. It's not "just" simchas YT. So the question is whether I can invoke sharing in *his* simchah over finishing the Torah to participate. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search http://www.aishdas.org/asp of a spiritual experience. You are a Author: Widen Your Tent spiritual being immersed in a human - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Sep 22 16:57:21 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:57:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] forms of teshuvah Message-ID: From R' Gil Student: Medieval Ashkenazic authorities prescribed a variety of strong acts of self-induced suffering as part of the teshuvah process, including long-term fasting, lashes, exile and more. Rabbeinu Peretz (Gloss to Semak, no. 53) lists four kinds of teshuvah: 1) teshuvas charatah, in which you regret the sin; 2) teshuvas ha-geder, in which you set additional boundaries for yourself to avoid sinning in the future; 3) teshuvas ha-kasuv, in which you undergo the punishment listed in the Torah for your sin; 4) teshuvas ha-mishkal, in which you inflict yourself with pain corresponding to the amount of pleasure you enjoyed with your sin. Of these four, the first is what we consider standard teshuvah and the second is going above and beyond. The third and fourth are not - and should not be - practiced today. The Vilna Gaon's brother (Ma'alos Ha-Torah, introduction) makes clear that we cannot undergo these harsh forms of teshuvah in our time (his time, even more so in our time) and emerge physically and religiously healthy. Instead, he recommends intense Torah study. Me- what is the nature of the paradigm change claimed by the Ma'alos Ha-Torah? Gct 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 Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Tue Sep 22 15:25:17 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:25:17 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: <> Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is: ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the Torah" That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is because of the custom of making of completing the Torah. So maybe you should argue that *this* year Simchas Torah should not be called Simchas Torah, but Shmini Atzeres sheni! He does not say, as you have said "the simcha is that of completing the Torah*. << And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah".>> Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag. Most of the prohibitions however (such as not taking the sifrei Torah out for no reason, reading over and over, calling up ketanim) are because of kavod haTorah, ie kavod haTorah is the counterweight reason *not* to do these minhagim. However similar to the idea of oseh docheh lo ta'aseh, the mitzvah of simcha is able push aside certain kevod haTorah restrictions in certain circumstances, but clearly not in ones that are in fact a disgrace to the Torah, but only ones that enhance the simcha of the Torah. There is no reason for a siyum to push aside prohibitions relating to kavod haTorah. <> But he didn't he told you that is why the day has that name, not that the simcha in question is the siyum. All the different minhagim, including, but not limited to, having the siyum, are because of simcha. << I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum, and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a community that year.>> Then he need not have listed them as "v'od nehagu" etc <> But the gemora learns the simcha for yom tov acharon shel chag out of a separate pasuk to the psukim that we learn it for Sukkos. Why would Shmini Atzeres need its only special pasuk with its own special limud, why does the Torah not combine it with the simcha learnt out for sukkos? The mishna understands that one is obligated in the same way just like the seven days of sukkos so why are they not combined in the Torah? The logical answer is because there is something somewhat different about the nature of this simcha (and in fact one might be tempted to darshen the ach, not as the gemora does to exclude the first night of sukkos, but to say that it is a day of simcha only, not simcha and sukkah and arba minim, but only simcha). The custom, and the Rema makes it very clear that it is a custom, of making the siyum is very late, given that we know that a three year cycle was in existence for many years, and yet the descriptions of what was going on on Simchas Torah well predate the universality of the one year cycle (descriptions amongst the Geonim, inter alia). The fundamental mitzvah on Shmini Atzeres/Simchas Torah is therefore ach sameach! The interesting question is why in chutz l'aretz, other than amongst those Sefardim who start the hakafot on Shmini Artzeres, we do *not* take the sifrei Torah out on Shmini Atzeres. However, to the extent that one is sitting in the sukkah on Shmini Artzeret, and it is still thereby linked to sukkos, then maybe it makes sense that in chutz l'aretz, the day that is ach sameach, with no link to what went before, is Simchas Torah, despite it only being yom tov sheini shel golios. <> But only if you assume the linkage that, against the explicit language of the Rema, the cause of all the other minhagim is the siyum, including where they are otherwise in violation of kevod haTorah, rather than that the special simcha due to the special pasuk is the cause of all the minhagim including the siyum. GCT! -Micha Regards Chana From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 03:12:16 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 06:12:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? Message-ID: . Several posters referenced the Rama, which R"n Chana Luntz translated as: > The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they > rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of > the Torah Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to our private learning of the parshios, such as those who learned the parsha each week by reading it themselves from a chumash while the shuls were closed? Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv, but by taking the time and effort to actually mouth every single word myself (rather than just listen to the kriah and let my mind dwell on this pasuk and that pasuk), I feel that my learning of Chumash this year was considerably better than in years past, and I'll have no problem celebrating that, to whatever extent our rav allows. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 23 05:51:56 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 12:51:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Medicine on Yom Kippur Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May a person who is ill, but is not in mortal danger (choleh she?ein bo sakana) consume unsweetened medicine on Yom Kippur? A. This is the subject of a dispute between the Acharonim. According to Shaagas Aryeh (75-76), one is not permitted to take medicine on Yom Kippur. Even though medicine is not a ?food?, and the prohibition to consume medicine is Rabbinic in nature ? which is normally waived for people who are ill, nonetheless, by swallowing the pill , the individual demonstrates that he or she considers it as food, and it is therefore forbidden on Yom Kippur. K?sav Sofer (OC 111) strongly disagrees and maintains that consuming medicine when ill does not demonstrate that it is a food item, and therefore medicine may be swallowed on Yom Kippur. Igros Moshe (OC 111:91) concurs with this ruling as well. If a person must drink water to swallow a pill, contemporary poskim recommend adding a bitter substance to water, such as a significant amount of lemon juice or vinegar, so that the water has a very unpleasant taste. This was the opinion of Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul, (Ohr L?Tziyon, IV 15:8), Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (Ashrei Ha?Ish III 23:230) and Rav Nissim Karelitz (Chut HaShani, Yom Kippur p. 145). If the pill is sweet, it is considered to be a food independently of its medicinal properties. In such instances, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach advised that the pill should be wrapped in a tissue and swallowed in that manner (Shemira Shabbos KeHilchasa 39:8; Halichos Shlomo, Yom HaKippurim 5:8). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 11:23:34 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 14:23:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200923182334.GA22665@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:25:17PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing >> the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah >> shel torah* venohagim...") > Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is: ... > Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah > because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the > Torah" > That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is > because of the custom of making of completing the Torah.... Because "shesimeichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh legamrah shel Torah". The simchah and making the mishteh are for the completion of the Torah. And thus the name of the holiday reflects that simchah. ... > Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha > on yom tov acharon shel chag. But the Rama doesn't say simchas YT, just "mishum simchah". OTOH, as we saw, the Rama opens by speaking of the simchah and mishteh of completing the Torah. So, if he just says "simchah" afterwards, why would I think it is anything but the "semeichin ... legamra shel Torah" already brought into the discussion? You're assuming the Rama changes topics without telling us. (Of course, I didn't think any of this out before my first post. I just read the sources, not thinking about other possibilities until it became a discussion. But I can't say that you convinced me yet that I brought too many unconscious assumptions to the table, that your read is comparably viable.) On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 06:12:16AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public > laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to > our private learning of the parshios... It refers to the completion that occured that morning, which was indeed leining. The AhS ad loc says the party is traditionally paid for with pledges by the Chasanim. Not, as I see done today, that the qiddush the next two Shabbosos are. > Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv... A siyum is a siyum. People make a siyum on a mesechtes gemara that they had no particular chiyuv to learn over learning something else. I just don't think we were mesaymim what the minhagim were established to celebrate. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. http://www.aishdas.org/asp If you want time, you must make it. Author: Widen Your Tent - Charles Buxton - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Wed Sep 23 15:37:44 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 23:37:44 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: > Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have > simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag. And RMB replied: <> I suppose the reason it seems to me obvious that mishum simcha, means the simcha of Yom Tov, is because: a) when the poskim say something is meshum simcha in the context of yom tov, they mean the mitzvah of simcha - for example: the Levush and the Bach (and numerous others, I believe) hold that the hakafos of the lulav during sukkos is mishum simcha (or at least the hakafos in the Beis HaMikdash, come directly out of the pasuk mandating simcha, and we then do them as a zecher. In that context, various rishonim and achronim discuss whether an avel is permitted to do hakafos, ie whether the simcha of the day pushes of the fact that a avel is forbidden from simcha. And in all these discussions, when they talk about simcha or mishum simcha, simchas Yom Tov is understood. b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas Torah. But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion would need to be had. c) On the other hand, the obligation to have a seudas mitzvah on finishing learning comes from a statement in gemora shabbas (118b-119a) where Abaye says: he should be rewarded because whenever he heard about a tzurba d'rabanan finishing a mesechta, he would make a yom tov for the Rabbis, which is understood to mean a seudas mitzvah. This is listed as part of a whole list of various Amoraim stating what it is that they believe they should get a special reward for, including being careful in known mitzvos (such a tefillin and tzitzis, and three meals on shabbas) and what are identified as good minhagim (such as not going daled amos with his head uncovered). It is really not clear into which category Abaye's statement falls. And while the Rema in Yore Deah siman 246, si'if 26 does say that " when one finishes a mesechet it is a mitzvah to rejoice and to make a feast, and it is called a seudas mitzvah" - to hang everything we do on Simchas Torah on this one statement in the gemora seems like a breathtaking chiddush. And think about it this way. If I were to finish a mesechta, here today, does that mean I can take the sifrei Torah out of the aron, dance around with them, call up some children (and some people together at once, making the brachos at once), read multiple times, take the sifrei Torah out into the street, (and, if it was shabbas, dance even if in general I held that dancing on shabbas is not permitted, as per the Shulchan Aruch?). Given that the essential siyum that is described in the gemora and referred to by the Rema is on a mesechet in Shas, then all this should be permissible on any day of the week, not just Simchas Torah. Because mai nafka minah. So I suppose it seems to me obvious that all the heterim the Rema refers to cannot be because of the simcha of the siyum, especially as the heterim were in place before the siyum was necessarily happening, historically, which again seems to suggest that the one does not cause the other. I do see that in fact the Aruch HaShulchan seems to support you, as in Orech Chaim siman 669 si'if 2 he says in the middle of the piece: "And also we are accustomed that two are called up together and bless, and even though it is not correct in any event because of the joy of the siyum they do so ." - whereas I would have thought he should say the joy of Yom Tov. So the Aruch HaShulchan would seem to be supporting your position. But still, I cannot see, if the Aruch HaShulchan is saying this, how he can be correct, because the consequences must surely be that any time there is a siyum, such a heter would then be permissible, or at least tolerable. I just can't see how this is right. I cannot see how, even if the whole of klal yisrael this year decided that we were going to have a siyum on kriyas hatorah when we had had a full year since last lockdown (ie assuming a vaccine became widely available and was effective), somewhere in the middle of the year, it would it be mutar as part of holding that siyum on krias haTorah on an ordinary Shabbat, to have the usual Simchas Torah heterim. According to you it would be, but I cannot see that this can be right, and I struggle to believe the Rema would authorise it were he here today. <> Not really. Given that mishum simcha in the context of a Yom Tov is logically understood to mean simchas yom tov, without the modifier, the Rema is just explaining in greater detail why we do everything we do before. That *includes* holding the completion of the krias hatorah cycle on Simchas Torah. ie we arrange to have the siyum on Simchas Torah, *because* of the nature of Simchas Torah, not that Simchas Torah is the way it is because of the siyum of finishing the reading cycle. -Micha Gmar Tov Chana From zev at sero.name Wed Sep 23 17:48:28 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: On 23/9/20 6:37 pm, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an > avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas > Torah. But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion > would need to be had. Last year, when I was an avel, I was told that for Hoshanos I should not go around at all, and should lend my arba minim to someone else who hasn't got them, and have him go around in my place. (Or at least that's how I understood it; it may be that lending the arba minim was simply a suggestion to do someone a chesed, since I wasn't using them.) For Simchas Torah I was told that I could go around with the group, but should not hold a sefer torah while doing so; after the hakafa I could take a sefer and dance with it. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781 zev at sero.name "May this year and its curses end May a new year and its blessings begin" From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 25 05:07:22 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 12:07:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?What_foods_should_one_eat_at_the_seuda_?= =?windows-1252?q?ha=92mafsekes_=28last_meal=29_on_erev_Yom_Kippur=3F?= Message-ID: Please see https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/foods-one-eat-seuda-hamafsekes-last-meal-erev-yom-kippur/?category=yom-kippur&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shsh%20Haazinu%205781%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=32573763&spUserID=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&spJobID=1784317155&spReportId=MTc4NDMxNzE1NQS2 What foods should one eat at the seuda ha?mafsekes (last meal) on erev Yom Kippur? | OU Kosher Certification Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 608:4) writes that on erev Yom Kippur, one should eat light foods that are easily digestible, so one will be able to daven on Yom Kippur with proper concentration. There is a common custom to dip challah in honey. Mishnah... oukosher.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emteitz at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 13:32:06 2020 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 16:32:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What will be with Simchas Torah Message-ID: The comment was made, "Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to our private learning of the parshios, such as those who learned the parsha each week by reading it themselves from a chumash while the shuls were closed? Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv, . . ." It isn't? See OC 385:1. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Sep 29 05:08:16 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:08:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is an Esrog Muktza on Shabbos Message-ID: >From today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. This year, the first day of Sukkos is Shabbos, and there is no mitzvah of lulav and esrog. Can I show my neighbor my beautiful esrog, or is it muktza? Q. Shulchan Aruch (OC 658:2) writes that a lulav is muktzah on Shabbos. Since there is no mitzvah of lulav and esrog on Shabbos, a lulav serves no purpose, and it is mukztah like other tree branches. However, an esrog may be moved, since it has a function; one may smell the fruit. (There is a dispute if the beracha on fragrances is recited when smelling an esrog on Sukkos, since the primary function of an esrog on Sukkos is for the mitzvah of lulav and esrog and not for fragrance. To avoid the uncertainty of reciting a beracha, the Shulchan Aruch recommends not smelling an esrog on Sukkos. Nonetheless the Mishnah Berurah (658:5) writes there is no restriction to smell an esrog on Shabbos and recite a beracha, because there is no mitzvah on that day.) Since, it has a function, it is not muktza, and it may be moved for any purpose. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt?l (Shmiras Shabbos K?Hilchaso 22: note 62) writes that today, since people are protective of their esrogim and will not pass them around to be smelled, they are categorized as ?muktza machmas chisaron kis? (expensive or delicate items that are generally stored in a safe location), which may not be moved for any reason on Shabbos. The Aruch Hashulchan (OC 308:17) appears to rule this way as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 03:05:03 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 06:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: . I have long been bothered by why we cannot start or stop Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/geshem without a formal announcement , yet no announcements at all are required for starting and stopping any of the other changes to our tefilos. This past spring, in Avodah 38:24, I quoted a teshuva from Rav Hershel Schachter, where he tackled this question. (It is titled "Piskei Corona #9: Hallel on Pesach Night and Tefillas Tal". "Our Rav" refers to Rav JB Soloveitchik z"l; the parentheses are Rav Schachter's.) > There is a big difference between She'eila (V'sen Tal Umatar > Livracha) and Hazkara (Mashiv Haruach). See what I wrote in > the name of our Rav in MiPeninei HaRav (section Tefila, number > 5), that changing the descriptions of Hashem (from Mashiv > Haruach to Morid Hatal) requires Reshus Hatzibur, and an > individual is not allowed to make changes on his own. But I still don't understand what makes Mashiv Haruach so unusual. According to Rav Schachter's logic, shouldn't we also need Reshus Hatzibur to change the description of Hashem between HaKeil HaKadosh and HaMelech HaKadosh? Moreover, why is this Reshus Hatzibur required *every* *single* *time* that we start or stop Mashiv Haruach? Why isn't it sufficient that Chazal ordained that we start it every year on Shmini Atzeres, and stop it every year on Pesach? I once questioned how our Yom Tovim have any d'Oraisa status at all: If there's no Beis Din to declare that a certain day was Rosh Chodesh Tishrei, then where does Yom Kippur's status come from? The answer I got (Eliyahu Kitov, The Book of Our Heritage, v 1 pg 230) was that Hillel's beis din was mekadesh in *advance* all future Roshei Chadashim that would be calculated according to his rules. According to this reasoning, the required Reshus Hatzibur doesn't have to come from the gabbai or the chazan. It comes from Chazal, who ordained this schedule of changes to the Amidah, so when the calendar says to make a change, my requirement to do so comes automatically, whether I'm in shul or not, just like for all the other changes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Sep 30 12:02:34 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:02:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] fear of death Message-ID: Sheldon Solomon is a social psychologist at Skidmore College. He earned his B.A. from Franklin and Marshall College and his doctoral degree from the University of Kansas. He is best known for developing terror management theory, along with Jeff Greenberg and Tom Pyszczynski which is concerned with how humans deal with their own sense of mortality Sheldon Solomon - "I feel like there's a real sense in which doing these studies and writing books and lecturing has been my way of avoiding directly confronting my anxieties by turning it (me - fear of death) into an intellectual exercise" [Me - sounds like it could've been said by R'Chaim] Is this a common approach in orthodox circles Gmar tov 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 llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 30 06:10:27 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:10:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Question for Today's Times Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May one fulfill the mitzvah of picking up their lulav and esrog while wearing gloves? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 651:7) writes that if a person wrapped a cloth around their hand and picked up the lulav, some say one has not fulfilled the mitzvah. This is because the cloth is a chatzitza (barrier) between the hand and the lulav. The Mishnah Berurah (651:33) writes that the same applies if one is wearing gloves. He also explains that the reason Shulchan Aruch writes ?some say?, is because this is a matter of dispute among Rishonim. The opinion of the Ran is that if one wrapped their hands with cloth or put on gloves, the cloth is viewed as an extension of one?s hand, and as such, it is not a barrier. Therefore, if one did pick up the lulav while wearing gloves, the lulav should be lifted again to fulfill the mitzvah in accordance with those who view the glove as a chatziza. However, a new beracha would not be said because the mitzvah was already fulfilled according to the Ran. One who must wear gloves in shul should recite the berachos and shake the lulav at home before coming to shul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Jul 1 05:12:56 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:12:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ben Noach and mitzvas kiddush hashem Message-ID: <043501d64fa0$f4d21a60$de764f20$@touchlogic.com> I believe a few issues ago someone asked if benei noach are obligated in mitzvas kiddush hashem (to be moser nefesh to avoid their 7 mitzvos, as we are obligated wrt murder/arayos/AZ) See toldos Noah at length on this subject. Pg. 247-270 Email offline if you want scans.. Are they commanded in mitzvas kiddush hashem (no - rambam) Are they allowed to be moser nefesh for mitzvas kiddush hashem (machlokes) Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid killing someone (machlokes) Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid abortion. q etc From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 1 09:40:03 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 16:40:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux Message-ID: I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? 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 mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Jul 1 15:31:10 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:31:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status Message-ID: <052501d64ff7$52b1d1b0$f8157510$@touchlogic.com> https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/kosher-appliances/467/shattered-dre ams/ ... What is induction cooking? Induction cooking is a revolutionary energy efficient way of cooking without heat. How do you cook without heat? The answer is with electro-magnetic energy. The conventional burner is replaced with a coil of tightly wound copper wire under the glass cooktop. Turning on the "burner" sends electro-magnetic energy through the coil. If you placed your hand on the coil area, you would feel nothing. If you placed an aluminum pan on the same area you would still feel nothing. However, by placing an iron skillet or a pot with an iron core or magnetized stainless steel on the cooktop, the magnetized skillet completes the magnetic connection and the electro-magnetic field of energy transfers directly into the pan. This causes the iron molecules to move very rapidly, giving off heat. In turn, the cookware cooks the food. Lifting the pan off of the cooktop breaks the magnetic connection, and you will no longer be cooking. The cooktop will be heated by the "magnetic" pot or pan, but it does not get hot from the coil. Consequently, any spill onto the ceramic cooktop surface will be a result of an irui kli rishon, spillage from a hot pot, not a heated cooktop as you would have in conventional cooking. Hence, if one would want to kasher the cooktop, it could be accomplished by a lesser means of kasherization, irui kli rishon.10 Although induction cooking offers a koshering benefit, the cooktop cannot be used on Shabbos or Yom Yov because the cooking connection is made once the pot is put onto the coil area. Similarly, one would not be able to remove the pot from the cooktop on Shabbos or Yom Tov because one would be "disconnecting" the magnetic field by removing the pot. While the ability to kasher an induction cooktop is an advantage, the disadvantage of not being able to use it on Shabbos or Yom Tov makes this cooktop impractical, unless one has more than one cooktop in the kitchen (an induction for during the week, and a non-induction for Shabbos and Yom Tov). As with every new advent of technology, one balabusta's dream is another balabusta's nightmare. From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 03:43:44 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:43:44 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 3:00 PM Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was > forbidden. So at least for Ashkenazim this whole issue should not > exist. Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut. > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for the gezeira seem to apply. Even for Sephardim, since the SA is meikel in seif 4 in the case of servants in a beit yisrael. Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 15:43:22 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:43:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:27:08AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > RMB writes: >> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and that >> the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / minhag she'eino >> chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done. > So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b: > Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, v'Rav > Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: > Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? People practice like REbY. Why? R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example of BY chalaq R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah I presume you would say something like: R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: it'r universal pesaq R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something entirely different? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. Author: Widen Your Tent - Rachel Levin Varnhagen - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From cantorwolberg at cox.net Thu Jul 2 05:57:12 2020 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:57:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Something to Ponder Message-ID: To paraphrase this profound statement below by R? Yitzchok from the Talmud R.H. (16b) which is quite timely: Any year that begins without the straightforward, clear and unequivocal tekiya, will sadly end with the wavering sound of defeat ? the terua. ??"? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 05:12:53 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:12:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: . In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this is the one I want to ask about.) > The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation > of Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana > (danger). Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the > Mishnah, shuls were located outside of the cities where it was > not safe to be alone at night. The Rabbis were concerned that > people who came late to shul might be left alone while finishing > to daven. To give latecomers a chance to catch up and finish > davening with everyone else, Chazal extended the davening by > adding Mei'ein Sheva. I've heard this same explanation many times from many sources, but I've never understood it. Mei'ein Sheva is shorter than a single page in most siddurim - does its presence really lengthen the service significantly? If the shuls were outside the cities, it must have taken a certain amount of time to get home, and even to get to the outskirts of the city. Were the latecomers unable to catch up to their neighbors? Were the on-time people unwilling to stay in shul for the one or two minutes needed for the latecomers to finish? If this problem was sufficiently significant for Chazal to enact this measure, there were probably several latecomers every week, not just a single latecomer now and then. If so, couldn't the latecomers simply wait for each other, even if the on-time people rushed to get home? There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better? Thank you in advance. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 07:14:04 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:14:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200702141404.GB25994@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 01:43:44PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was > > forbidden.... > > exist. Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut. > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and > pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh" > it includes any form of cooking by heat... Or, any form of cooking by fire, whether broiling, roasting or boiling or frying in water or oil that are heated by fire. For an example that predates the taqaah, solar cooking. Does a rishon deal with the question of eating an egg cooked in the sand that was placed there by a non-Jew? And, as I opened in my first response, it's not just the Rama; "al ha'eish" and variants are common in the discussion. I don't think it's an Ashkenazi thing, just because the SA doesn't use the idiom himself. > That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a > Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for > the gezeira seem to apply.... The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for refu'ah beShabbos. Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking via fire. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, http://www.aishdas.org/asp eventually it will rise to the top. Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 2 07:13:40 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:13:40 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> > RMB wrote: >> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and >> that the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / >> minhag she'eino chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done. And I wrote: > So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b: > Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, > v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: > Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? <> Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim. If you were having a shiur about the halacha of meat, it would be remiss of you to mention the one, and not the other. And if you were giving a shiur to both Ashkenazim and Sephardim, I hope you would say - CYLOR [the L of course standing for "local"], rather than saying "we pasken" one way or the other. Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel, you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like. There are other opinions, and they might have been brought, but the end of the shiur would say - follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov, whereas I would hope that would not be what you would say regarding BY chalaq. <> But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>. Glatt is a tricky one, because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin. And the question then comes down to, why is it that someone keeps glatt, is it because he wants to be machmir for those who think it is really following the BY's iqur hadin, or is it because that is what his community does. If he is just doing it because he lives with other Hungarians so does it, but he really thinks the Rema is right, and it is a chumra that the people came up with (which you can argue it is, particularly because glatt is not the same as BY chalak) then it is a minhag garua. But if the community does it because they are really holding like the BY (at least to an extent), despite the Rema, I would say it is a minhag chashuv. I thought the better example of what you were saying is milchigs on Shavuos, which has no Rav psak behind it, but which has Rabbinic approval in the form of the Rema. That shows the distinction between what I thought you were arguing and what I am much more clearly. Ie that according to you minhag chashuv has no Rabbinic psak source, it is something the people came up with, but it is a religious practice that the Rabbis then approved, whereas I am saying that for a minhag chashuv to be a minhag chashuv, there needs to be a rabbinic psak that the people are relying on, even if other communities hold differently. And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, and the community then followed. It is not some religious idea, like milchigs on Shavuos, that the community came up with independently and then was approved. If R' Eliezer or Rabbi Meir had never paskened the way they did, then the minhag would never have arisen. That, I thought, was the fundamental distinction between what I am saying and you are saying. That I was saying to be a minhag chashuv, it has to be originally Rav psak derived, that people then followed. Whereas I understood you as saying that a psak is a psak, and different from a minhag chashuv, which had to be people derived, ie bottom up, albeit with Rav approval post fact. And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag? <> But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good thing. Especially as we discussing what are needed for an eruv (a halachic device), or whether the kohanim should duchan during Mincha and nei'ila of Yom Kippur. These aren't things like going around with baskets on your head, or squeezing fruit. They are religious acts. <> Yes. << R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq>> Yes, although I prefer to phrase it the psak that the people as a community [I prefer that to the term "local" as it sounds limited, while communities can be large or small] have adopted following Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, or Rabbi Meir [out of the options available], making it the minhag chashuv. <> I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in psak. To the point where their psak is not a valid psak. The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. Regarding R' Yochanan I believe I am following Rashi. Both Rashi, Tosfos and the Rosh refer us to Ta'anis 26b where it explains that if it is the halacha, you teach it "b'pirka" - ie you learn it out in the public halachic discussions. If it is minhag, you don't teach it b'pirka, but if someone comes to you and asks, you posken that way, and where it says nahagu - one does not rule this way, just "I avid, avid, v'lo mehadrinan lei". And Rashi in Ta'anis, says: U'man d'amar nahagu [ie Rabbi Yochanan] - mashma: hen nohagu me'alehen, aval aino ikar. Uminhag mashmar - Torat minhag yesh b'davar, uminhag kosher hu. The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher. That rather sounds like either it is a minhag taus [which in Yerushalmi speak is aino minhag, such as not working all motzei shabbas, even though this is clearly a religious practice] or a norm that has halachic impact. But it should not be dignified with the name minhag. However over in Eruvin Rashi (quoted approvingly there by Tosfos and the Rosh) uses the language - aval i avide lo machinan byadayhu - ie if they do it, we don't protest. That sounds much more like the minhagim that the Tosfos and the Rosh were discussing in Pesachim as being minhag lo chasuv (ie tolerated, and not gone against in front of, ie you are not to rule publically in front of them, but you don't actually have to keep), which is contrasted to a minhag chasuv. Tosfos in Brachos 52b (d"h nahagu ha'am) draws a different distinction between the situation over in Ta'anis and in Eruvin (and elsewhere, such as Rosh Hashana) and the situation in Brachos where Rabbi Yochanan again says nahagu ha'am [like Beis Hillel in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda - the subject matter being whether we say the blessing over the spices before or after the blessing over the flame in havdala]. Because we [and I think we all in fact, as Tosfos says] l'chatchila go according to this R' Yochanan that we make the blessing over the spices before the flame, and yet it would seem from Eruvin 62b (as understood by Ta'anis) that l'chatchila one shouldn't follow where it says nahagu ha'am, just that where the people are so accustomed, we don't make them go back if they did it wrong (so in the case of the havdala, one would think one should really bless the flame first, and then the spices, just if people did it the other way around, we wouldn't make them repeat havdala). And Tosfos' answer there in Brochos is that over in Eruvin, the nahagu ha'am is contrasted to someone saying "halacha" which means "halacha l'chatchila u'morin ken" and therefore when somebody else says nahagu they are meaning bideved, "aval hacha yachol l'hios d'ain kan ele nahagu greida". Note however that in the case in Brachos everybody agrees the halacha is like Beis Hillel (versus Beis Shammai). The issue at stake is how to understand Beis Hillel - like Rabbi Yehuda or like Rabbi Meir. And while Rabbi Meir would seem to be the stam mishna, we follow Rabbi Yehuda. That feels to me less "al pi Talmud chacham" - it is more how the relevant Talmud Chacham understood another set of talmudei chachamim. Whereas the case in Eruvin 62b is regarding what R' Eliezer ben Yaa'kov himself held (regarding non-Jews assuring a courtyard for eruv purposes, if there was only one Jew) versus Rabbi Meir, or in Eruvin 72 (do you need a shituf and an eruv), or Ta'anis (whether on Yom Kippur the Kohanim should bless at Mincha and ne'ila) ie is a matter of direct psak versus psak. With the sense that according to Rabbi Yochanan the psak in question is plain wrong, and knowledgeable people should ignore it. I think you could thus alternatively argue that Brachos is a classic minhag garua that happened to accord with how Rabbi Yehuda understood Beis Hillel, which in the absence of a clear psak either way, we follow the order the people decided upon, for their own reasons, whereas in the other cases, it is a minhag taus, that the psak is clearly wrong in halachic terms, but because there is this da'as yachid position out there, the hachamim were not prepared, in bideved situations, to make people go back and redo. Or you can say that actually over in Brachos Rabbi Yochanan, while using the term nahagu ha'am, given that it was not used in contrast to minhag k', meant really to say minhag k' - making it a minhag chashuv. Or maybe in fact we just ignore Rabbi Yochanan's expression. And what we are actually following is the ma'ase shehaya of Rava. In any event, for me the key fact is the Rav Huna defines minhag explicitly as going according to a psak, something you, I believe, said couldn't happen. How you understand Rabbi Yochanan, who specifically does not use the term minhag, just nagu ha'am for something which (leaving aside the situation in Brachos) he disapproves of, is secondary. -Micha Regards Chana From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 07:36:54 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:36:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:13:40PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote: >> Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, >> v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: >> Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? >> <> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example >> of BY chalaq > Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is not > what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim... You totally lost me. Neither Shemu'el's nor R Yehudah's "we" are Askenazim or Separadim. ... > Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we > pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel, > you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben > Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like... We are in agreement. >> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt > But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common religious > practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>... Which is exactly what I have R Huna saying here. The actual halakhah is lenient, the hamon am in practice are nohagim to be stringent like REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the stringency. It's not din, but it's a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval -- a minhag chashuv. > Glatt is a tricky one, because of > the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin... Still, Hungarians are following it as minhag, and are more lenient than the Sepharadi half of the world BECAUSE it is "just" minhag. To them. The issue you raise is a distraction from explaining the gemara. > And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely > and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi > Meir, and the community then followed... > And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as > expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' > Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario, > and yet it has the definition of minhag? After the rabbinate said you didn't have to. So in that sense it is "bottom up". The masses chose to do something extrahalachic. >> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah > But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a > minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good > thing.... By "common" hanhagah tovah I meant in contrast to any kind of minhag. Something many pious people do, not the masses. Like learning all night on Shavuos in Lithuania circa 1890. But in principle, even if R Huna meant everyone was doing it: Why would hanhagah tovah mean that the rabbis endorsed it? And I think you then agree with this "in princple, when you write: >> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He >> can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi >> talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something >> entirely different? > I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact > something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a > non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in > certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are > accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The point being here, is > that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in > psak. To the point where their psak is not a valid psak. The problem > being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and > have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. R Yochanan can say something is a hanhagah tovah and not a pesaq nor even an actual minhag. > The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice > with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher... Which according to me is what "minhag garua" means. Whereas you're saying that R Yochanan refers to it as a hanhagah, but is not calling it a minhag garua. Despite the common shoresh. So we agree on w to understand this machloqes, we disagree with what to call each position. To me, Shemu'el and R Yehudah, by talking about pesaq aren't talking about minhag chashuv. To you there are. R Huna is definitely talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq. Which to me is a minhag chashuv and to you a minhag garua. And R Yochanan is talking about a practies that doesn't rise up to that level. Which to me is a minhag garua and to you not even that much. It's all just in the labels, but that changes how we read the rishonim. That is why I ignored all the gemaras you cited that don't use the /nhg/ shoresh. The rest of your post argues for something we agree about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. http://www.aishdas.org/asp All that is left to us is Author: Widen Your Tent to be as human as possible while we are here. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From zev at sero.name Thu Jul 2 08:08:02 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 11:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking > and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul > shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking > with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the food gets hot of its own accord. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 2 11:51:19 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:51:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <003001d650a1$c6ab7350$540259f0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: >> <> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example >> of BY chalaq > Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is > not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim... <> You wrote the words "parallel to my example of BT chalaq" - see above. I responded to *your* example of BY chalaq - because you said that "R' Yehuda amar Shemuel: that's what we pasken - is parallel to my example of BY chalaq" I totally agree that neither Shemuel's nor R' Yehuda's "we" are Ashenazim or Sephardim - but *you* said that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is parallel to your example of BY chalaq (which you contrasted to glatt), and BY chalaq versus glatt is about Ashkenazim and Sephardim. If you agree that BY chalaq is not a parallel, then there is no need for this discussion. But because of the parallel that you brought, I couldn't (and can't) see how you can make the statement below (which you say you agree with): > Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is > what we pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda > amar Shemuel, you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow > R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like... If we agree that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is *not* parallel to BY chalaq, then we can agree we understand R'Yehuda amar Shmuel the same. >> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like >> glatt > But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common > religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>... <> Err, ReBY is actually the lenient one (he says you need two Jews living in a chatzer to assur it for carrying). Rabbi Meir is the stringent one (he says you only need one Jew and the chatzer is assur). So transposing your explanation, but with the correct way round, do you agree that, "the actual halacha is strict, the hamon am are in practice nohagim to be lenient like REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the leniency. It is not din, but it is a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval - a minhag chasuv"? Now do you think that if the people did not have ReBY to rely on, but had just come up with this by themselves, against the halacha of Rabbi Meir, Rav Huna would be so tolerant? If yes, then why did he phrase it as minhag k'RebY? Why didn't he say that if there is only one Jew in the courtyard, the minhag is to carry (because it doesn't' matter whether ReBY said so or not)? But if it *does* matter that ReBY said so, then you need more than just the people coming up with this idea of only one Jew living on the chatzer themselves. You need ReBY, or some other Rav, to have said so, followed by community acceptance to have it become a minhag. > Glatt is a tricky one, > because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin... > And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as > expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' > Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated > scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag? <> There were two different piskei halacha out there. ReBY (the lenient one) and R' Meir (the stringent one). R' Yehuda amar Shmuel states emphatically that ReBY is right, Halachically, and that the halacha is like him. R' Huna appears not to agree, otherwise he would have said what R' Yehuda amar Shemuel said. Rather, he accepts that the people having made the choice to go for the lenient position as a valid minhag. It is partially bottom up in that the people have made a choice between Psak A and Psak B, and decided to follow Psak A, in this case the lenient psak, but I do not believe they have decided to do something extrahalachic independent of there being two piskei halacha out there. It is the same scenario as following R' Yossi for milk and chicken, or Rabbi Eliezer for cutting the wood to make the knife to do the bris on shabbas. Or moving a lit candle on shabbas. Or working or not working erev pesach morning. Each case is the same underlying scenario: there were a range of piskei halacha out there. And certain communities, or sometimes the whole people, decided to follow one psak over another (even though in pure halachic terms that isn't necessarily the halacha). That is what makes it a minhag chasuv, as articulated by the Ri and the Rosh, ie that it is al pi Talmud chacham, and not just something the people came up with on their own, even where the people can provide religious justification. RMB: >> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah Chana: > But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a > minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a > good thing.... <> *Hanhaga tova* is *your* language, not mine. I assume you mean R' Yochanan here, not R' Huna, because you are the one who applied the words hanhaga tova to R' Yochanan in a previous post. I don't at all think that R' Yochanan is describing what he thinks of as a "hanhaga tova". I think (and I believe Rashi and Tosfos agree with me) that in this context if you have to use the term hanhaga, then he believes he is describing a hanhaga ra. <> No idea what you mean here. >> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? >> He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY >> is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to >> mine or something entirely different? > I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact > something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a > non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish > people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things > people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The > point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is > actually flat out wrong in psak. To the point where their psak is not > a valid psak. The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the > people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. <> He could, but in the context, where he is dealing with a situation where there is a lenient psak and a stringent psak, and where the people are going according to the lenient psak, he is clearly not saying that. He is saying it wrong what the people are doing, but if you come across somebody who has done it, they either don't have to reverse what they have done, or you don't need to create a fuss (as they have what he considers a da'as yachid to rely on). Depending on which Rashi you follow (and presumably Rashi/Tosfos in Eruvin had a different girsa in Ta'anis, given that they don't quote "not reversing", but "not protesting"). > The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this > practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher... <> Hanhaga was, as mentioned, your language, not mine. I said that one interpretation of Rabbi Yochanan is a minhag garua - that is if you hold that it is something that one shouldn't protest. Just like all the other cases in Pesachim where the rabbis said not to protest the minhagim. However if it is something one should protest, just that one doesn't make people do things again (ie our girsa in Ta'anis), then that appears to be less than a minhag garua (more like a minhag taus). <> No, I don't think so. <> No, I never said that, and I don't think so. In the case of Shmuel and R Yehuda we are talking about psak. <> No. To me what R' Huna is talking about is also minhag chashuv. I didn't think you agreed with that, but am fine if you do. If you agree that this is a minhag chashuv, then it would seem that what we disagree about is whether or not Rav Huna is "talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq". You say definitely, ie "definitely talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq". I don't think this is right at all. I believe Rav Huna is talking about a common practice performed by the people *in light of ReBY's psak* Which is precisely why he phrases it as "minhag k'ReBY". Because the fact that there was a psak from ReBY is critical to his understanding. It is what makes it a minhag choshuv (and not a minhag garua). Just as the Ri and the Rosh and the Shach say that the definition of a minhag chasuv is that it is "al pi talmid chacham". This is "al pi talmid chacham" - the psak of ReBY, which is key to what drove the people. No ReBY, no such minhag. And R' Huna is expressing this clearly by linking the minhag with the psak of ReBY. <> Not quite. If we didn't have the girsa we do in Ta'anis, ie we had the girsa that Rashi and Tosfos in Eruvin seem to have had, I would say this was a minhag garua. Problem is, our girsa in Ta'anis doesn't just say, we don't protest, but we don't make them do over again or go back (given that in Ta'anis we are talking about kohanim duchaning at nei'lah, presumably that means we don't have the Shatz resay the non duchaning language, after the kohanim have ostensibly duchened, or make the kohanim sit down once they have said the bracha). That suggests that we do in fact protest if we can get to them before they get started duchening. I don't think something that the chachamim were prepared to protest, even if the view they are protesting is based on the psak of a Talmud Chacham, can be considered any kind of minhag, except perhaps a minhag taus. <> I agree it is all in the labels, but I thought there was something more fundamental here. My understanding of your position was that if the people were following a particular psak (such as the people following the psak of ReBY or the people following the psak of Rabbi Yehuda not to work on the morning of erev pesach), that could not be called minhag. Rathein your view minhag, including minhag choshuv, had to be something that was generated by the people themselves, like milchigs on Shavuos, ie completely bottom up. That is why I could not see how you characterised what R' Huna said, of minhag k'ReBY as minhag, as it didn't seem to fit. Whereas my understanding of a minhag chashuv was that it needed to have at its root a psak of a Rav, with the bottom up aspect of it being the people's, or a community of people's, decision to take on that particular psak, even in the face of disagreement from other Rabbonim. That seems to fit perfectly with Rav Huna's statement of minhag k'ReBY. I thus understand a completely bottom up minhag as falling within the category of minhag garua (or just minhag)- although even within that category, there are those that have strong rabbinic approval, and those that have weak to non-existent rabbinic approval (depending on how garua they are). But like your minhag chashuv, my minhag garua does have to relate to something religious/halachic, even though at some point one reaches a situation where the rabbis come out full force against what the people are doing. The reason I am so vague about the line between minhag garua and minhag taus, is that this line seems very difficult to define, Ie at what point does a minhag which is very garua tip into a minhag taus seems hard for me to pinpoint (I have been looking at two cases of very dodgy minhagim, namely women in states of tuma'ah - both involving, inter alia, women not going to shul - one during their periods, and one in the period after giving birth, and the attitudes towards them couldn't be more different. The one is reasonably accepted as something of an acceptable minhag, with some rabbinic blessing, even though the origins are difficult, and it is clear it is solely women generated, while the other gets the full minhag taus, must be stamped out, treatment, at least amongst some. Even though on first glance they would seem to be directly parallel). While you, I thought given that you characterised what I called minhag garua as being minhag chasuv, understood minhag garua as being something done even by non-Jews that had halachic impact, which didn't seem to me to be what was being discussed in the gemora in Pesachim at any point, and hence not the subject of the Ri and Rosh's distinction there. -Micha Regards Chana From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 14:38:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 17:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: free public transport on Shabbos/Yomtov In-Reply-To: <004401d644dc$61126e20$23374a60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004401d644dc$61126e20$23374a60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200702213852.GD25994@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 08:20:35PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > There are a fair number of shops, but there are a fair number of houses too > (and some blocks of flats, definitely majority Jewish). We know people who > live in a couple of the houses right on Golders Green road... A balebatishe comment: It needn't be people right on the road, though. Bus lines are routed to serve neighborhoods. Even if it were a street entirely of shops and other commercial enterprises, a route would take into account any residential areas that are in easy walking distance to any stops. Which is certainly true of what I remember from Golder's Green Road. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless http://www.aishdas.org/asp he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. Author: Widen Your Tent Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 15:23:32 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:23:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 00:29 Zev Sero via Avodah, wrote: > On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking > > and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul > > shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking > > with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. > > Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. > The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the > food gets hot of its own accord. > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and metal heated by a magnetic field? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 15:45:36 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:45:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <20200702141404.GB25994@aishdas.org> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Simon Montagu Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 01:44 Subject: Re: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status To: Micha Berger On Thu, 2 Jul 2020, 17:14 Micha Berger, wrote: > > The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't > apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for > refu'ah beShabbos. > > Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the > gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their > motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking > via fir > Lo p'log is not a universal. There are plenty of cases where hazal and the pos'kim explore in which scenarios gezeirot are or are not relevant (as opposed to implementation details in what is essentially the same situation, such as pianos or violins on shabbat). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 15:58:34 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:58:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais haVaad] Police Protection: Are Officers Liable for Injuries They Inflict? Message-ID: <20200702225834.GA17037@aishdas.org> I think this topic has crossed all of our minds lately. >From https://www.baishavaad.org/police-protection-are-officers-liable-for-injuries-they-inflict/ Tir'u baTov! -Micha The Bais HaVaad Halacha Center Police Protection: Are Officers Liable for Injuries They Inflict? Adapted from the writings of Dayan Yitzhak Grossman July 2, 2020 On June 12, Atlanta Police Department officers Garrett Rolfe and Devin Brosnan were attempting to handcuff Rayshard Brooks and arrest him for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Brooks wrestled with the officers, seized Brosnan's Taser, and attempted to flee. With Rolfe pursuing him, Brooks turned and fired the Taser toward Rolfe. Rolfe then shot at Brooks three times, striking him twice in the back and killing him. Rolfe was subsequently charged with felony murder and ten other offenses. In considering Rolfe's possible culpability for killing Brooks, the first issue is whether the shooting was justified as self-defense. We do not consider here this specific question, but only the general question of the liability of a duly authorized agent of the state for the use of force resulting in injury or death. Agents of the court In the Mishnah, Abba Sha'ul rules that a father who strikes his son, a teacher who disciplines his student, and an agent of the court, who accidentally kill, are not subject to the law of exile (galus).[1] The Tosefta rules similarly with regard to civil liability for nonlethal injury: The father, the teacher, and the agent of the court are all exempt, unless the force used is "more than is appropriate," in which case they are liable.[2] An alternate formulation appears elsewhere in the Tosefta: The agent is exempt if he injures inadvertently (b'shogeg), but liable if he injures deliberately (b'meizid), "out of concern for tikun olam."[3] R' Shimon ben Tzemach Duran explains that these two formulations are equivalent: If the force used is "appropriate" but nevertheless results in injury, the agent is considered shogeg, but if it is "more than is appropriate," he is considered meizid. He also explains that the liability in the case of meizid is in accordance with the normal laws of torts, and the concern for tikun olam is the rationale for the exemption of shogeg, i.e., Chazal absolved a shogeg from liability despite the principle of adam muad l'olam, by which people are usually held liable for torts committed b'shogeg.[4] It would seem that according to this approach, "shogeg" here has its general meaning of an act that while inadvertent, nevertheless has an element of negligence to it, and so would engender liability were it not for the concern for tikun olam, since it would seem absurd for an agent of the court who carried out his duty entirely properly to be liable for its consequences (were it not for tikun olam), any more than the court itself and its agents would be liable as tortfeasors for the very imposition of punishment such as lashes or execution upon a miscreant![5] In apparent contradiction to the assumption of the Tosefta that an agent of the court is not authorized to use more force than necessary to carry out his duty stands a ruling of Rabbeinu Yerucham ben Meshulam, accepted by some poskim, that an agent of the court who strikes the body or damages the property of a recalcitrant person is exempt even if he was able to accomplish his goal by other means.[6] It seems that this opinion understands that the availability of nonviolent means does not automatically render the use of violence "more than is appropriate." Thus in Rabbeinu Yerucham's case, although alternative nonviolent means were available, once the agent chose to utilize violence, the level of force he used was the minimum necessary to accomplish his goal, whereas in the case of the Tosefta, the level of force utilized was gratuitously high. Alternatively, some contemporary writers consider it self-evident that Rabbeinu Yerucham concedes that the authorities have no right to use "excessive" and "unreasonable" force relative to the goal of preserving the rule of law.[7] Perhaps, then, when the Tosefta assigns liability where the force used was "more than is appropriate," it is referring to just such "excessive" and "unreasonable" force. In any event, other poskim disagree with Rabbeinu Yerucham's ruling and maintain that an agent of the court is only exempt from liability for the use of force if he had no other means to achieve his goal.[8] The exemption of an agent of the court only applies provided force was used in order to compel compliance with the court's directives, but not when motivated by anger.[9] Some contemporary writers assume that a police officer would have the same status as the "agent of the court" discussed by Chazal and would therefore be exempt from liability insofar as his use of force was appropriate. __________________________________________________________________ [1]Makkos 2:2. Cf. Rambam and Ra'avad Hilchos Rotzeiach Ushmiras Hanefesh 5:6, and Bnei V'lechem Yehudah, Bnei Shmuel, Gur Aryeh, Hamei'ir La'aretz, Kruv Mimshach, Ma'asei Rokeach, Mirkeves Hamishneh, Ein Tarshish, and Shufrei D'Yaakov ibid.; Shu"t Shevus Yaakov cheilek 3 siman 140; R. Yehuda Zoldan, Tzidkas Yehuda V'Yisrael, siman 6 os 1; R. Moshe Taragin, Shliach Bais Din Sheharag Beshogeg. One version of the Tosefta contains a position contrary to that of Abba Sha'ul; see Or Sameiach Hilchos Rotzeiach 5:6 and Tzidkas Yehuda V'Yisrael ibid. [2]Tosefta Bava Kama 9:3. [3]Ibid. Gittin 3:13. [4]Shu"t Tashbatz cheilek 3 siman 82. [5]This is certainly true according to the poskim that maintain that the principle of adam muad l'olam does not apply to oness gamur (see Tosafos Bava Kama 27b s.v. uShmuel amar; Shulchan Aruch C.M. 378:1-3 and Shach ibid. s.k. 1). [6]Sefer Maysharim Nesiv 31 cheilek 2 p. 92 second column, cited by Sema C.M. siman 8 s.k. 25 and Ba'er Heitev ibid. s.k. 8. [7]Adv. Yaakov Shapiro and Dr. Michael Vigoda, Shimush B'choach al Yedei Hamishtarah, n. 33. [8]Toras Chaim Bava Kama end of daf 28; Shevus Yaakov cheilek 1 siman 180, cited in Pis'chei Teshuvah ibid. s.k. 6; Sha'ar Mishpat ibid. s.k. 2; Aruch Hashulchan ibid. se'if 6; Yeshuos Yisrael ibid. Ein Mishpat s.k. 2 and Chukas Hamishpat s.k. 6. Erech Shai ibid. se'if 5 concludes that the matter is a s'feika d'dina. Cf. Halacha Pesukah ibid. p. 86 n. 214. [9]Shu"t Ra'anach (Yerushalayim 5720) siman 111 p. 475. Cf. Shevus Ya'akov cheilek 3 end of siman 140 and Shimush B'choach al Yedei Hamishtarah. From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 16:02:21 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:02:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200702230221.GA7250@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 01:23:32AM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: >> Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. >> The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the >> food gets hot of its own accord. > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and > metal heated by a magnetic field? I believe Zev is saying that the induction cooker doesn't cause any metal to glow. However, when you cook on an old-school electric stove, the coil will glow. And glowing is included in "eish". (I'm not sure about the last part. I think it would depend on whether causing a gachales shel mateches is bishul or havarah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. http://www.aishdas.org/asp Life is about creating yourself. Author: Widen Your Tent - George Bernard Shaw - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From zev at sero.name Thu Jul 2 17:03:56 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 20:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: On 2/7/20 6:23 pm, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > Glowing hot metal is included in "fire".? Here there is no fire at all. > The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the > food gets hot of its own accord. > > > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and > metal heated by a magnetic field? The pot or pan doesn't get nearly hot enough to qualify as fire. It doesn't have to, since it's heating the food directly, rather than heating a pot sitting on top of it, which will then heat the food it contains. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Thu Jul 2 17:02:12 2020 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 00:02:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Realities of Times Past (Was: Latecomers to shul on Friday night) Message-ID: R?Akiva Miller asks (38/54) a typically thoughtful question about adding Magen Avot on Friday night. The reasoning and realities are difficult to understand, he notes, and so he asks, ?There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better?? I don?t have any answers for him but I have similar questions about reasons given for other changes in halacha. For example, we don?t blow shofar on RH that falls on Shabbat (thus missing out on a Biblical commandment) because of three maybes: (a) maybe someone will be blowing who doesn?t know how to do do properly, (b) maybe that will happen on a Shabbat RH, and (c) maybe that person will carry the shofar in a reshut harabim to an expert for instruction. Well, how often would that occur? Was this common in those days? And if so, why? It?s not common today for shofar blowers to go to experts on RH to give them instruction. And equally difficult fir me to understand, wasn?t there some other way to prevent the triple maybe sin of carrying other than making all the Jewish people for generations on end miss out on a once a year biblical commandment.? Was society so different that this was really an otherwise unmanageable problem at the time the ruling was put into effect? To paraphrase Akiva, there?s something that I'm missing about the realities of that time; can anyone explain the reasoning better? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From marty.bluke at gmail.com Fri Jul 3 00:13:36 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 10:13:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop Message-ID: R? Simon Montagu asked: > That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a > Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for > the gezeira seem to apply.... This would seem to be a classic case of davar shebminyan tzorich minyan acher lhatiro which we don?t have. There are many gezeras that we observe today even though the reason behind the gezera no longer applies. For example, taking medicine on shabbos is prohibited because you may grind the ingredients. In today?s world of pills the reason no longer applies yet most poskim still prohibit taking pills for something like a headache. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:17:50 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 17:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200706211750.GA10250@aishdas.org> Someone pointed me to https://www.torahbase.org/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%A0%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D See section 6. R' Asher Weid isn't comfortable have a nakhri cook for you by microwave. Something I had thought was pretty commonly accepted. In this case, he allws, but only because the situation that required getting a housekeeper to cook is a she'as hadechaq, and because hiring a Jewish housekeeper would be a hotza'ah merubah. Only adding the lack of aish as a yeish le'ayein and is willing to use it as an additional "chazi le'itztarufei". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he http://www.aishdas.org/asp brought an offering. But to bring an offering, Author: Widen Your Tent you must know where to slaughter and what - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 01:31:54 2020 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:31:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Realities of Times Past (Was: Latecomers to shul on Friday night) Message-ID: Fellow Ovedim have (IIRC at the behest of RAM who asked the question) been wondering why Tefillat Me'eyn Sheva' is said on Friday evenings. RJK particularly cited RAM: > "The reasoning and realities are difficult to understand," he notes, " > and so," he asks: "There's something that I'm missing about the > realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they > davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain > the story better?" There may be a clue in an article by Jacob Mann. Jacob Mann was, as far as I can reconstruct, a Pzsworsker Chassid who loved Judaism and learning, but upon landing the USA possibly tragically aligned himself with the wrong crowd. But this is just a reconstruction. For all I know, him publishing a bunch of articles in the Reform"Hebrew Union College Annual" may have been because it was in his eyes the most widespread scholarly publication, one that would afford him the most exposure. Interestingly, he insisted on transliterating Hebrew into Ashkenazi pronunciation, and HUCA agreed. At any rate, he was a pretty interesting historian of liturgy and may have been on to certain things correctly. In an article entitled Changes in the Divine Service of the Synagogue due to Persecution, he brings evidence for several periods of anti Jewish persecutions in which certain prayers or practices were prohibited, giving rise to creative solutions. Though he does not deal with Me'eyn Sheva' (as far as I remember), the setting seems to work well. Perhaps Me'eyn Sheva came from a time when Jews had to pray outside the settlements, because they were praying in hiding, and thus had to watch out for each other's safety. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 03:59:50 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:59:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status Message-ID: Rav Hershel Schachter has a fascinating essay in his Sefer about when we say lo plug by gezeros and when not. It has been a while but I believe he says that gezeros are all lo plug except if the reason was written into the nusach of the gezera. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 13:16:24 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 16:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200707201624.GE25868@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 01:59:50PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Rav Hershel Schachter has a fascinating essay in his Sefer about when we > say lo plug by gezeros and when not. It has been a while but I believe he > says that gezeros are all lo plug except if the reason was written into the > nusach of the gezera. The problem is, that determination is often non-trivial to make. Where is the end-quote -- is the explanation part of the quote of the wording of the gezeira, or the gemara's explanation of its purpose stated and stated after the quote? We discussed this idea many years ago, when I proposed this was the root of the machloqes about basar kafui. Very related is that it is also sometimes unclear when something is a pesaq in existing law, and when a gezeira. If it's a pesaq, then applicability is built in whether or not it's stated. Pesaqim only hold if the situation is materially the same. What the gemara says about putting out a burning house on Shabbos wouldn't apply to a wood-frame house in an urban or most suburban settings because the risk to life is simply different. Like the Peri Chadash vs the Chasam Sofer about chalav yisrael; the PC says CY is a pesaq, so he has little problem saying that CY is moot when there is other disincentive to adulterating the milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness http://www.aishdas.org/asp which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost Author: Widen Your Tent again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Jul 7 14:44:42 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 21:44:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Risk Reward Message-ID: <1594171681704.0f3bd39e3250de82@aishdas.org> A note I wrote To a pulpit rabbi: I strongly support a recent discussion concerning return to synagogue. I do have to say that there's one point that I deeply disagree on. Maybe it's a matter of nuance that cannot be communicated in trying times to the general public. I don't believe that flattening the curve has no halachic import. In fact as a community we are always making this kind of trade off. If not why wouldn't we spend every dollar we have on improving public health. The answer per R' Schachter and R' Weiss is that's the way the world operates. Bottom line risk reward tradeoffs are often very difficult. Personally I'd prefer we be more open and honest about them and have public discussion but realize that may not be practical So what is the halachic philosophy of risk/reward? perhaps a starting point The cohain gadol and the alternates for himself or wife on Yom Kippur? Kt Joel Rich From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 19:15:59 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 22:15:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Francis Collins on Science and Religion Message-ID: <20200708021559.GA27334@aishdas.org> An interview with Dr. Francis Collins (an Obama appointee now most famous for being Dr. Anthony Fauci's boss). https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/anthony-faucis-boss-on-why-things-could-be-much-better-soon.html Three snippets that are on topic for our group, but there is more discussion of G-d there than this: "I was an atheist when I entered medical school. I was a Christian when I left and it was much driven by this experience of trying to integrate the reductionist aspects of science into the much more fundamental issues I saw my patients wrestling with, like is there a God and does God care about me and what happens after I die? "Those are uncomfortable questions for an atheist 23-year-old, but ultimately they became totally compelling and required some investigation and some answers. Ultimately, out of that, it came to me that it makes a lot more sense to believe in God than to deny God's existence. A scientist isn't supposed to make assertions that you would call universal negatives, because you can never have enough evidence to do that, and yet that's what atheism calls you to do. ... "Similarly, the way that some people have caricatured science as a threat to God, that doesn't resemble the science that I'm doing. It's been a terrible, I think, consequence of our last century or so that this polarization has been accepted as inevitable when I see it not at all in that light. There are many interesting scientific questions that tap into the kind of area that you're asking about, like what is the neuroscientific basis of consciousness? What is the neuroscientific basis of a spiritual experience? If there is such a neuroscientific basis, does that make this spiritual experience less meaningful or more so? Those are fun conversations to have." "... What is our future? I don't want to see a future where this science-versus-faith conflict leads to a winner and a loser. If science wins and faith loses, we end up with a purely technological society that has lost its moorings and foundation for morality. I think that could be a very harsh and potentially violent outcome. But I don't want to see a society either where the argument that science is not to be trusted because it doesn't agree with somebody's interpretation of a Bible verse wins out. That forces us back into a circumstance where many of the gifts that God has given us through intellectual curiosity and the tools of science have to be put away. "So I want to see a society that flourishes by bringing these worldviews together by being careful about which worldview is most likely to give you the truth, depending on the question you're asking." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole http://www.aishdas.org/asp heart, your entire soul, and all you own." Author: Widen Your Tent Love is not two who look at each other, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:30:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714183052.GC21268@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:40:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate > dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), > as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will > be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised > (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- > r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? I'm uncomfortable with your formulation, but I think I agree with your point. As microelectronics become more embedded in society, it's harder to consider their use uvda dechol. So pesaqim ought change. In RMF's case.... What changed over time was not whether a given fact was uvda dechol. He assumed that use of a timer would pose mar'is ayin issues, and that metzi'us changed. A close parallel, but not exactly the same. And yes, it could well be the tzibbur who make that point known to the posqim. (Especially today, when the gedolim we look to for pesaq often are men who never left yeshiva life. As opposed to the previous generations when we looked to the town's rav for pesaqim.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward http://www.aishdas.org/asp by patting yourself on the back. Author: Widen Your Tent -Anonymous - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:30:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714183052.GC21268@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:40:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate > dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), > as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will > be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised > (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- > r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? I'm uncomfortable with your formulation, but I think I agree with your point. As microelectronics become more embedded in society, it's harder to consider their use uvda dechol. So pesaqim ought change. In RMF's case.... What changed over time was not whether a given fact was uvda dechol. He assumed that use of a timer would pose mar'is ayin issues, and that metzi'us changed. A close parallel, but not exactly the same. And yes, it could well be the tzibbur who make that point known to the posqim. (Especially today, when the gedolim we look to for pesaq often are men who never left yeshiva life. As opposed to the previous generations when we looked to the town's rav for pesaqim.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward http://www.aishdas.org/asp by patting yourself on the back. Author: Widen Your Tent -Anonymous - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:21:12 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Yehareig velo ya'avor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I posted on this issue here and on another list: >> If a Ben Noach [Noahide, i.e. non-Jew] is being forced to abrogate >> one of his 7 mitzvot... > I received this [from Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter]: >> If you accept the authority of Rambam, this is black-letter law. See Sefer >> Shoftim, Hilkhoth Mlakhim UMilxmotheyhem, Chapter 10, Paragraph 2: "A Ben-Noax >> who is compelled to violate one of his commandments is allowed to do so > Thanks for the cite! If you check out the mishneh lmelech there For those who didn't look, it's at: https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rtype=%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98&mfid=104611&rid=15005 > he refers > to the parshat drachim derech atarim (drasha #2) who makes exactly the > argument I proposed as why a ben noach would be required to give up his > life rather than kill someone. But also says "debishfichus damim mitzvah haben-noach sheyeihareig ve'al ya'avor". By making it about "mai chazis" it isn't about the 7 mitzvos in general, or even the other two mitzvos that for Jews are yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Rather, because the only question is who dies, not the comparative values are life vs obedience. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation http://www.aishdas.org/asp -- just think of an incurable disease such as Author: Widen Your Tent inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:25:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:25:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:38:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger wrote: >> But in general, there is an increasing reluctance to pasqen in >> some circles. Whether Brisker chumeros or the MB's advice to >> either play safe in some places or avoid the question in another. >> So, we're seeing more and more of it. > I spent a couple of minutes trying to think of examples of this phenomenon, > and I ended up agreeing that this *seems* to be more common in hilchos > brachos... > However, in most other areas of halacha, it's not a choice of this or that. > It's a question of issur and heter. (Or of chiyuv and not.) In such cases, > "avoiding the situation" tends to be synonymous with "being machmir".... I would agree for the "defy the question" pesaqim being more common in hilkhos berakhos. But I don't see Brisker chumeros or baal nefesh yachmir being more of a berakhah thing. Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of safeiq would be lehaqeil. My largely implied question was how to save this reluctance to pasqen from accusations of lack of faith in the entire concept of pesaq and deciding halakhah. Nu, so for the Briskers, I takeh think they don't believe that a pesaq settles the din anymore. As the Rambam put it, Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah. But for the CC and the rest of us? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; http://www.aishdas.org/asp Experience comes from bad decisions. Author: Widen Your Tent - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From zev at sero.name Tue Jul 14 12:29:37 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Yehareig velo ya'avor In-Reply-To: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> References: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <27345b4a-f329-cfd4-8b0f-8b8be1147f72@sero.name> >> Thanks for the cite! If you check out the mishneh lmelech there > > For those who didn't look, it's at: > https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rtype=%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98&mfid=104611&rid=15005 > >> he refers >> to the parshat drachim derech atarim (drasha #2) who makes exactly the >> argument I proposed as why a ben noach would be required to give up his >> life rather than kill someone. > > But also says "debishfichus damim mitzvah haben-noach sheyeihareig ve'al > ya'avor". By making it about "mai chazis" it isn't about the 7 mitzvos > in general, or even the other two mitzvos that for Jews are yeihareig > ve'al ya'avor. Rather, because the only question is who dies, not the > comparative values are life vs obedience. Thank you. However if the Rambam agreed with this it's odd that he didn't say so. And the svara against it seems fairly simple: Yisrael are commanded in kiddush haShem; we're expected to sometimes put obedience ahead of our lives. Therefore when considering for which mitzvos we must do so, the svara of "mai chazis" compels us to include this. It wouldn't make sense to say that for AZ we must be moser nefesh, but for shfichas damim we needn't. But for Bnei Noach the whole concept of mesirus nefesh doesn't exist. They are never expected to do that; we have an explicit pasuk that they're even allowed to serve AZ rather than die. So how can we tell them to sacrifice themselves for mai chazis? On the contrary, they will tell you exactly mai chazina -- this is my life and that is his. To *me* my life is more important than his, just as I expect that to *him* his life is more important than mine. Just as I would give my life to save my children, because theirs are more important to me than mine, so I will give your life to save mine, because mine is more important to me than yours. It's only once the principle that there is something higher than survival is established that we can extend it with mai chazis. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Tue Jul 14 12:55:07 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:55:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <722273ba-58af-d192-57ea-032a8f9cd3e5@sero.name> On 14/7/20 2:25 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Nu, so for the Briskers, I takeh think they don't believe that a pesaq > settles the din anymore. As the Rambam put it, Rav Ashi veRavina sof > hora'ah. Or, they believe in psak in principle, but not in their own ability to pasken, and they're not too sure about your ability either, or his or his or his. But I think there's also a good helping of the gemara's statement that a baal nefesh doesn't eat meat on which a psak was required; as the proverb goes, "a shayla macht treif". Only if the heter is found explicitly in the sources, so that no reasoning was needed can one eat the meat without any qualms. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 03:25:38 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 06:25:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue Message-ID: . R" Micha Berger wrote: > Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't > which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because > there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of > safeiq would be lehaqeil. Safeiq "rather than" pesaq?? Can the two be differentiated? Isn't psak *based* on safek, trying to figure out where Truth resides? > My largely implied question was how to save this reluctance to > pasqen from accusations of lack of faith in the entire concept > of pesaq and deciding halakhah. As I see it, it's not that we have a lack of *faith* in psak, but that we're so confused about how it works. And especially, how it works nowadays when there's no Sanhedrin. To me, the classic case in bitul is bitul b'rov. Does the minority really lose its identity to the point that all pieces can be eaten by a single person at one time? Or is it only a procedural psak, such that we are fearful for each item, and they must be shared among several people, or eaten by one person at different times, etc etc. And it carries through to psak too. Can I really ignore the minority opinion? Without a Sanhedrin to actually discuss and vote, how can I be sure that the other camp is wrong? And so, just as we "avoided the issue" by having several people share the probably-kosher items, we also "avoid the issue" in psak by finding a situation where we don't choose between the several opinions. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 15 02:48:25 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:48:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] action or results? Message-ID: There are four identical quadruplets brothers, Robert, Simon, Larry and Judah. Robert , Larry and Simon are all asymptomatic carriers of the corona virus but Judah is not. The local law and rabbinic authorities require wearing a mask when going out in public but none of them do. The four brothers are not clearly identifiable, when seen, as orthodox Jews but are so known by the public. They all go outside to identical public events where their identities are not known. Robert infects a number of people but he's never identified as the source of the infection. Larry infects a number of people and is identified as a source of infection in the media. Judah never infects anybody and neither does Simon. What shows up on each brothers' permanent record card in shamayim? Is it multidimensional? 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 JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 15 02:50:41 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? 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 zev at sero.name Wed Jul 15 07:03:18 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5622a8f8-7434-2f3e-086c-d0052a01ff28@sero.name> On 15/7/20 5:50 am, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required to > give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol > worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching > theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and > not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? I don't believe there is. These three are not worse than other sins. E.g. murder is only an issur hereg, and is therefore *less* severe than any issur skila and sreifa. So the term "Big 3" is a misnomer; they're in the category for being big. And they didn't all get in to the category in the same way. Avoda Zara comes from the pasuk "venikdashti". Murder comes in from the svara of "mai chazis". And all the arayos come in because of the pasuk that compares eshes ish to murder, so they are included in the "mai chazis" even though that svara doesn't apply to them! Which is very strange. Then there are other mitzvos that also *obviously* override pikuach nefesh, so obviously that they don't need to be listed, such as milchemes mitzvah. (For that matter, since one is required to go even to a milchemes hareshus if the king conscripts one, that too must override pikuach nefesh. And obviously war overrides venishmartem.) Bris also involves a certain level of risk, and historically it was just accepted that a certain number of babies will die from it, and that we have to accept this. So to that extent it also overrides pikuach nefesh, until the risk rises high enough to change that. Losing one child obviously increases the probability of there being a genetic defect in the family, and yet it is not enough to cancel future brissen in that family. Only a second loss does that. Then we have a pasuk that earning a living justifies taking certain risks with ones life; while I wouldn't call this overriding pikuach nefesh or venishmartem, it obviously puts a limit on those principles that many people don't consciously acknowledge. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 15:13:54 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200715221354.GF8072@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:50:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required > to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol > worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching > theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and > not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? One is the greatest violation of Torah, one of Avodah, and one of Gemilus Chassadim. AZ as the inverse of Avodah and Murder as the inverse of Gema"ch shouldn't need elaboration. As for arayos... In the Maharal's commentary on that mishnah, he describes the three amudei olam as a relationship with one's soul, with G-d and with other people. Torah perfects the relatiosionship with oneself. Whereas someone who pursues arayos turns that self into a menuval. Torah is about perfection of the mind, middos and the rest of the soul. Arayos is about giving up on all that and just answering to the body. Living cannot be at the expense of an axe to a pillar one's life stands on. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of http://www.aishdas.org/asp greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, Author: Widen Your Tent in fact, of our modesty. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 05:42:49 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 08:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required > to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of > idol worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one > overarching theme that links these three transgressions that explains > why these and not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? If there's an overarching theme, I haven't found it yet. I have tried to find the reason for each of these three, what makes them different than the other 610, and I've come up with very different answers for each of them. If I'm not mistaken, murder is the only one for which the Gemara gives an explicit reason. If my life is at stake, and the only solution is at the cost of someone else's life, who's to say that my blood is redder? Simple math. Or simple logic, your choice. Next is avodah zara. I came up with this answer myself, so I eagerly welcome any comments about it. My logic is like this: An inventive mind can come up with all sorts of justifications for violating mitzvos in extreme circumstances. "Violate this Shabbos so he will keep many other Shabbosos," for example. Eliyahu built a bamah on Har Carmel, because he knew it would lead to Kiddush Hashem. But Avoda Zara is the sort of thing where - by definition - the means NEVER justify the ends. There is NO situation in which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be Kiddush Hashem. It's a contradiction in terms. Even the opportunity to do mitzvos for the rest of my life can't justify an actual Avodah Zara today. (I'm not talking about where someone merely pretends to do Avodah Zara; that's a more complicated topic and might be justified by some poskim in some cases.) But to actually do real Avodah Zara is treason against Hashem and never allowed. That leaves Arayos. This is a very strange halacha, especially to the general culture arounds us, which accepts these acts (when done by consenting adults) as victimless pleasures, not capital crimes. Non-logical chukim. So why is it that we must avoid these acts, even at the cost of our lives? Doesn't make sense. The tentative answer I've come up with is that this halacha is meant to help insure solid family life. Society around us is falling apart, and many people think that one of the causes is that too many children grow up without strong family values. It is merely my guess, but I can't help but suspect that this is why Hashem made Arayos so very very assur, to impress this value upon us. Even if (lo aleinu) a situation actually arises, and a person is tempted to rationalize that he can do this aveirah today and live to do mitzvos tomorrow, it is still not worth it. That's the message of the severity of this halacha. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hanktopas at gmail.com Sun Jul 19 06:59:31 2020 From: hanktopas at gmail.com (Henry Topas) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 09:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: Recently, I have heard of some shuls beginning Shabbat morning davening at Nishmat or even at Shochayn Ad. This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the same Sha'tz conclude what he started? Kol tuv, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 00:59:57 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:59:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan Message-ID: Just catching up and the message from R' Joel Rich on Sun, 24 May 2020 caught my eye. RJJ wrote: > In the case of the woman putting on a tallis without tzitzis- there > was no real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis > - ie fulfil the mitzvah (except her rabbi told her not to), so why > would you be satisfied with second best. I'm not so sure about the "no real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis" part. In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar could cause carrying in a public domain. Along those lines one could argue that a tallis may also cause one to carry in the public domain if not tied properly, or strings break off, etc. Just a thought, - Danny From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Jul 20 07:02:26 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:02:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when > we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed > by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as > the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the > same Sha'tz conclude what he started? See S"A O"C 53:3 (Shatz vs. tzibbur) https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Orach_Chayim.53.3 She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, Joel Rich From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 11:26:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:59:57AM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: > In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. > > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. ... In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! So, I'm not sure why the HM needs to invoke the risk of an aveirah. Lo zakhisi lehavin. And more to our point, the lack of berakhah doesn't seem to me to prove the mitzvah itself should be avoided because it means some risk exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but the lighting of a fire. Author: Widen Your Tent - W.B. Yeats - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From cbkaufman at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 13:58:38 2020 From: cbkaufman at gmail.com (Brent Kaufman) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:58:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 (4) Message-ID: There are actually 4 big ones that one must voluntarily give one's life rather than transgress. A person is obligated to die rather than transgress any mitzvah in the Torah if one is being forced to do so publicly during a time of shmad. The Rambam lists this, but I didn't check before writing this, for its exact reference. chaimbaruch kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 19:12:11 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 22:12:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: . I wrote: > But Avoda Zara is the sort of thing where - by definition - > the means NEVER justify the ends. There is NO situation in > which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be Kiddush > Hashem. It's a contradiction in terms. I made a typing error there. What I had intended to write was: "There is NO situation in which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be *L'Shem Shamayim*. It's a contradiction in terms." It's not difficult to imagine situations (or cite historical incidents) where someone might do an aveirah L'Shem Shamayim. But that's for the other 612. It seems to me categorically impossible for someone to do actual Avoda Zara (as opposed to merely going through the motions, which is also assur, but *possibly* not yehareg v'al yaavor) for L'Shem Shamayim reasons. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 05:41:45 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:41:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: > This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when > we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed > by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as > the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the > same Sha'tz conclude what he started? I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. E.g.: We learned in a Mishna in Brachos that if the Shat"z cannot continue, a substitute continues where he left off. More common: Aveilim often switch Shat"z at Ashrei - the 2nd one saying Kadish Tiskabal (may our prayers be accepted) even though the first one said the actual Amida that this is going on. In your case, both congregants will be saying both opening and closing Brachot - so I'm not even sure what you're asking. Kol Tuv - Danny From doniels at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 05:34:42 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:34:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> References: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB commented on my thought: > In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos > that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To > the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem > in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! That's THIS VERY Rambam. > So, I'm not sure why the HM needs to invoke the risk of an aveirah. Lo > zakhisi lehavin. > > And more to our point, the lack of berakhah doesn't seem to me to prove > the mitzvah itself should be avoided because it means some risk exists. My mistake for getting you mixed up. The HM isn't commenting on Tzitzis - that part is my "chiddush"... that there's a "good reason" why women didn't wear Tzitzis over the generations. The HM was commenting IIUC why the Rambam talks about women wearing Tzitzis but not Tefillin. I can't find the HM on Sefria, or I'd link to it. Kol Tuv - Danny From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Tue Jul 21 12:08:22 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:08:22 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan Message-ID: <000001d65f92$4e243cf0$ea6cb6d0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:59:57AM +0300 RDS wrote: > In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. > > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. And then RMB responded: <> We need to back up here. There is a fundamental machlokus in the gemora between Rabbi Yehuda (supported by Rabbi Meir), and Rabbi Yossi (supported by Rabbi Shimon) as to whether women are permitted to perform mitzvos aseh she hzman grama - from which they are exempt. Rabbi Yossi says "reshus" - ie they are allowed. Rabbi Yehuda says no, it is assur for women to perform mitzvos asseh shehazman grama. And there are two explanations given for Rabbi Yehuda forbidding women performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. The first (eg by Rashi) is of Bal Tosif. That is, if the Torah says women are exempt from performing certain mitzvos, then for them to go ahead and perform them would violate the principle of bal tosif. However, most rishonim argue that bal tosif does not make sense here, and therefore most rishonim, including those who posken like Rabbi Yehuda, do so not under the principle of bal tosif, but under a principle that can be called "halachic counter-pressure". That is, even Rabbi Yehuda did not forbid all women from doing acts that constitute mitzvos (such as sitting in a sukkah on Sukkos, which, if you follow the bal tosif principle would be ossur for a women to do), but only where there are halachic counter-pressures, and the Haagahos Maimoniyos is quoting some of the halachic counter-pressures that the rishonim discuss. As we all know, we posken (both Sephardim (via the Shulchan Aruch) and Ashkenazim (via the Rema)), like Rabbi Yossi, that women *may* perform mitzvos aseh shehazman grama, and this Rambam is one of the bases for the way the Shulchan Aruch poskens. However: a) there are a significant number of rishonim who posken like Rabbi Yehuda; and b)even within Rabbi Yossi, there are those who say that Rabbi Yossi only permits where the halachic counter-pressure is something less than a Torah prohibition. If, like the Rambam, you holds that saying a bracha sheino tzricha is a Torah violation, and you hold according to this view in Rabbi Yossi, you end up with the Rambam's position. If you follow Tosfos (Ri and Rabbanu Tam), who holds that saying a bracha sheino tzricha is merely a rabbinic prohibition, then following Rabbi Yossi t would be pushed aside in the circumstance of a woman performing a mitzvah that is a reshus. So holds the Rema. For various talks I have given on this, I have drawn up the following diagrams - I don't know if they will come out in the digest form, but I think people find them useful to understand some of the complexity. [RMB, is there some way of embedding these in the digest?] If you don't get them, I am happy to email them separately. Bottom line there are a lot of rishonim who did not hold like Rabbi Yossi, and this is reflected in, inter alia, the discussion regarding tzitzis. Because while the Tur, following his father the Rosh and the Rabbanu Tam/Ran happily permit women to make blessings over shofar and lulav, he says in Tur Orech Chaim Hilchot Tzitzit siman 17 ".And the Rambam writes that they may wrap without a blessing, and he is going in his position that explains that women are not able to bless on something from which they are exempt but Rabbanu Tam writes that they are able to bless even though they are exempt and it is better that they do not bless ..". And the Bach, picking up on this seeming contradiction says (Bach Orech Chaim Siman 17) On "And it is better that they do not bless"; There is to ask from that which he writes in siman 589 in connection with shofar that even though women are exempt they are able to blow and to bless and one should not protest. And it seems to me that it seems from here that in connection with tzitzis that it is not the custom for women to wear, and to bless, if so if a woman comes to ask ab initio if it is permitted to dress in tzitzis and to bless he should say to her that she should not bless because it is better that they should not bless given the disagreement of our rabbis but with shofar where they are already accustomed to blow and to bless they do not protest since they have on whom to rely but if they come to ask ab initio also with shofar you should say to them that they should not bless and we should rely on what was written here regarding tzitzis and this is the law [also] regarding shofar." But, it seems to me, to understand this portion, it is necessary to fully understand the depth of rishonic opposition to women performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. The Hagahios Maymoniyos was one of a number of Ashkenazi rishonim who disagreed with Rabbanu Tam/Ri/Ran and held one should posken like Rabbi Yehuda. Regards Chana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 19942 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.png Type: image/png Size: 21255 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.png Type: image/png Size: 20358 bytes Desc: not available URL: From simon.montagu at mail.gmail.com Tue Jul 21 03:40:33 2020 From: simon.montagu at mail.gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:40:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:59 PM Danny Schoemann wrote: > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. What mitzva couldn't potentially cause an aveira, including ones which women do aliba dekhulei alma? Bad timing in candle-lighting could cause hillul shabbat. On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 9:34 PM Micha Berger wrote: > In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos > that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To > the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem > in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! As I may have noted before, the general trend among Sepharadi aharonim is to follow RT against the SA and Rambam, and say that women at least can, and IIIRC davka _should_ make berachot on these mitzvot. ROY, kedarko bakodesh, insists on following Maran. From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 22 02:56:47 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:56:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?God=92s_existence?= Message-ID: Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all. I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience. It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place I?m not sure that came out as clearly as I might?ve liked but I hope you get the general idea. Thoughts? She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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 bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 22 12:57:46 2020 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:57:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A couple of points relevant to the 'big 3'. Firstly, as has been noted, they are not the only situations of yeihareig v'al yaavor. In addition to the situation of sha'as ha'shmad, the yerushalmi notes that mitzvos bein adam l'chaveiro are also YVAY. Like theft. And I believe we pasken that way. BUT that's not to diminish their uniqueness as YVAY mitzvos. They are mentioned in targum yonasan as a discrete set of YVAY mitzvos, I noticed in the last couple of weeks while doing chad targum. Although I couldn't find it again when I looked. That does mean the derivation in the Bavli is way after the din was already known, by a few hundred years at the least. And points to a much more them being a much more fundamental set of 3 with an early origin in halacha. In response to RZS's point about there being no obvious connection between them, that may well be exactly because they represent the extremes of three different branches of avoda, per the Maharal, and their only connection being that they are all archetypes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 23 08:21:33 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:21:33 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: <002001d66104$f2fb7ea0$d8f27be0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RAM wrote: In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this is the one I want to ask about.) > The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation of > Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana (danger). > Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the Mishnah, shuls > were located outside of the cities where it was not safe to be alone > at night. The Rabbis were concerned that people who came late to shul > might be left alone while finishing to daven. To give latecomers a > chance to catch up and finish davening with everyone else, Chazal > extended the davening by adding Mei'ein Sheva. <> And RAF suggested: <> However it seems to me that this does not answer RAM's question, as the point RAM makes is that Me'en Sheva is a very short additional prayer, and doesn't seem to make much difference one way or the other. Can I make a different suggestion (but again only a suggestion). I have been looking at something called Teshuvat HaGeonim HaChadashot, which, according to Bar Ilan (which is where I sourced it) was published by Simcha Emanuel in Jerusalem, 1995, from a manuscript in the Baron Gunzberg library includes previously unpublished geonic responsa, as well as the writings of early proven?al scholars. In it, in a discussion on the nature of kaddish found at siman 35, the presumably Gaonic author explains the locations of all the kaddishim and after explaining where they are in relation to Shachrit and Mincha (and why) he says ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? +?' ????? ??, ?+ ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? [???] ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??[?]? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????. " And after the blessings of reciting the shema of arvit because the prayer of arvit is reshut [Brachot 27b] and perhaps a person will go out from the synagogue after they finish the blessings of emet v?emunah and will not pray there with ten, and it will be that he will go out without kaddish." That is, there was a genuine concern that because arvit was reshut, people might come to say shema together, and then leave, hence the kaddish after shema and before shmonei esrei of arvit. Now, if that was a genuine concern, then maybe that also explains me'in sheva (especially if you understand me'in sheva as requiring, or at least being ideally, said with the community as a whole). Maybe the point is that a latecomer, given that arvit is reshut, was likely simply to say shema and its blessings and not bother to say shmone esrei at all but simply walk out. However with the incentive of saying me'in sheva together with the rest of the congregation, and with other people prepared to wait for him so that the me'en sheva would be communal, he would actually daven shmonei esrei in the presence of the minyan, so that he could then say me'en sheva with it. >Akiva Miller Kind regards Chana From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 23 09:34:09 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:34:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: <003001d6610f$17ad5ed0$47081c70$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: <> I should have pointed out that this particular teshuva was signed by Rav Avraham ben Rav Yitzchak - and given that he references "a few Geonim" and "other Geonim", later in the piece, it is more likely to be someone like Abraham ben Isaac de Narbonne (1110-1179), so more of a Rishon than a Gaon, despite the name of the compilation. Kind regards Chana From wolberg at yebo.co.za Sun Jul 26 09:36:50 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 18:36:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan 32:76 Message-ID: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> [AhS Yomi for yesterday covered OC 32:73-79. https://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi -mi] Loved the line: ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? -- ??? ??? ????? ???? ???. [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." -mi] Any comment on it? From zev at sero.name Sun Jul 26 16:10:19 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:10:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan 32:76 In-Reply-To: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> References: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> Message-ID: <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> On 26/7/20 12:36 pm, wolberg--- via Avodah wrote: > [AhS Yomi for yesterday covered OC 32:73-79. https://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi > -mi] > > Loved the line: ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? -- ??? ??? ????? ???? ???. > [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- > ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. > > [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts > about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." > -mi] > > Any comment on it? I think "yeseros" here means "superfluous", rather than merely "additional". Of course that begs the question, but I think that in general it's a statement of principle, not a rule for practice, though in this instance the AhS gives his opinion on what is superfluous. (I'd also translate "ein daas chachomim nocha meihem" less literally, as "Torah authorities do not approve of them", or even, riskily, "Daas Torah does not approve of them".) -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:50:00 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daas Chachamim Noachah Heimenu In-Reply-To: <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> References: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200727105000.GA9656@aishdas.org> In translating a Hebrew quote posted to the list, I wrote: >> [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- >> ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. >> >> [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts >> about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." >> -mi] On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 07:10:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > (I'd also translate "ein daas chachomim nocha meihem" less literally, as > "Torah authorities do not approve of them", or even, riskily, "Daas Torah > does not approve of them".) I was always taught something along the lines of your first version. I think it was R Yaakov Haber that I heard this from, but the idiom could equally have been intended to me something more like (loosely) "... isn't thinking with daas Torah". I found the argument compelling enough to try to offer both translations. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From driceman at optimum.net Mon Jul 27 07:36:27 2020 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?God=E2=80=99s_existence?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> RJR: > > Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all. > I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah > We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience. > > It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al > > In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place I haven?t read RAL?s essay (link?), but doesn?t RYhL use this idea at the beginning of the Kuzari, a generation before the Rambam? David Riceman From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Jul 27 09:04:15 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:04:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?God=E2=80=99s_existence?= In-Reply-To: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> References: , <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> Message-ID: <1E4BB098-3996-4C02-9BE1-6CA8B3672151@Segalco.com> I haven?t read RAL?s essay (link?), https://www.etzion.org.il/en/source-faith-faith-itself 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:14:27 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:14:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727201427.GC12492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 06:25:38AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R" Micha Berger wrote: >> Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't >> which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because >> there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of >> safeiq would be lehaqeil. > Safeiq "rather than" pesaq?? Can the two be differentiated? Isn't psak > *based* on safek, trying to figure out where Truth resides? Not safeiq rather than pesaq, "rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq". More reliance on safeiq deOraisa lehachmir, safeiq derabbanan lequlah -- unless efshar levareir / it's easy enough to be machmir. Of course, a baal nefesh may have a different definition of "easy enough". As opposed to looking to which shitah is stated by the gadol bekhochmah uveminyan (minyan rabbanim, rav with bigger following [looking at the Rambam or the Rosh...]), the logic of the sevara behind each possible pesaq, looking to see which pesaq was apparently accepted for how long and how broadly, hefsed meruba, kavod haberios... You know, the rules of pesaq. These latter kind of rules tend to be invoked less often than in the past. I think it comes from the Gra's position on the comparative unreality of pesaq after Rav Ashi and Ravina, taking the Rambam's "sof hora'ah" quite literally. Picked up by the Soloveitchiks, and with the popularity of Brisk among those who pasqen today... Add to that the whole concept of lomdus. Whether Brisker or other derakhim. When you value sevara much more than the other factors posqim have to balance, and you learn how to explain the sevara of all sides of a machloqes... There are fewer times the remaining rules of pesaq rise to the level of giving a clear answer. My latter two paragraphs feed into: > As I see it, it's not that we have a lack of *faith* in psak, but that > we're so confused about how it works. And especially, how it works nowadays > when there's no Sanhedrin. But we seem to disagree mostly on description rather than content: > And it carries through to psak too. Can I really ignore the minority > opinion? Without a Sanhedrin to actually discuss and vote, how can I be > sure that the other camp is wrong? ... "How can I be sure" IS a lack of faith in our ability to pasqen, as I would use the terms. Maybe the insecurity comes from a lack of surity we know how to do it right. I would still call it a lack of faith. If you don't think pesaq can be done the way the Rif, the Rambam, the Tur, the SA, the Levush, etc... did, that their precedent doesn't tell you how to decide which of the eilu va'eilu should become halakhah lemaaseh, that lack of faith in how to do pesaq has scary implications. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:19:21 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:19:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] action or results? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727201921.GD12492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:48:25AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > There are four identical quadruplets brothers, Robert, Simon, Larry and > Judah. Robert , Larry and Simon are all asymptomatic carriers of the > corona virus but Judah is not... > They all go outside to identical public events where their identities are > not known. Robert infects... > What shows up on each brothers' permanent record card in shamayim? Is > it multidimensional? Rachmana liba ba'i. Their records show each one's lack of concern for other's safety. Consequences, if they are correlated at all and some other aspect of hashgachah doesn't overwhelm this rule, megalgelim chov al yedei chayav. Which implies that who gets whom sick would at most be *indicative* of guilt for this or other deeds, not the actual thing he is guilty of. A person isn't judged for the results of their actions, or even for their actions themselves. (So, I'm denying both sides of the question in the subject line.) A person is judged "ba'asher hu sham" -- what kind of changes those decisions and actions made in themselves. I would take it for granted it's multidimensional. The person's "permanent record card" is their own soul. And the effects of their actions can improve one thing about the soul while damaging something else about it. A comparatively easy example is tact. a person can make a person that makes them more truthful, but gains that Emes at the expense of their drive for Shalom. And even without the previous paragraphs, Hashem isn't a Vatra -- the person will get the Tov that a more Emesdik soul has a beis qibbul for, and get less of the Tov that comes with losing some passion for Shalom. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:00:57 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727210057.GF12492@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: >> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when >> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed >> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as >> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the >> same Sha'tz conclude what he started? > I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. I called it an office, not the occupent. But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same idea. I have a theory why: I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a *shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:54:22 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:54:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] God's existence In-Reply-To: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> References: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20200727205422.GE12492@aishdas.org> RDR mentioned the Kuzari before I found the time to reply. I think what changed was in the discipline of philosophy. In the days of the rishonim, Philosophy was itself a kind of religion. Look at the opening paragraphs of ch. 1 of the Kuzari -- the king's survey includes a Philosopher (1:1), a Muslim, a Christian, and then the chaver. A Jewish Philosopher was a Scholasticist. Such that Rihal, even though the Kuzari is a book of philosophy as we now use the term, saw himself as anti-Philosophy. Then came the scientific method and people realizing the power and limitations of testing things empirically. The tensions between the Empiricists, who trusted these methods, and the Idealists, who wanted all knowledge to be as sound as Math, coming from self-evident postulates. And then the Kantian Revolution through to Existentialism and now Post-Modernism, etc... Philosophy less based on a confidence of being able to prove what's out there and more focused on describing the world as experienced. I argued here a few years back that this is what drove the popularity of universal hashgachah peratis. It's less a break from how rishonim understood HP than looking at a different topic. To the rishonim, a discussion of HP is all about its contrast to nature, randomness, bechirah chofshi, etc... Nowadays, the discussion of HP is about what it is we have bitachon in, how much hishatadlus do we need to invest given that what happens is decided by hashgachah... R Yehudah haLevi had a lack of faith in the idea that we can decisively prove that's really out there. That's for Greeks, who lack the more sure source of data -- mesorah. (1:13, 1:63) That mesorah part isn't very Modern in terms of the discipline of philosophy, but not believing we can ever really prove anything... Well, take this quote from 1:13: "Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved." Sounds downright Post-Modern! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Jul 28 19:19:28 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 22:19:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why did Chazal cancel shiva bc of Yom tov Message-ID: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> Many have recently written how they have missed the full traditional comforting process of shiva due to corona restrictions. That has reawakened in me the question of why did Chazal cancel shiva because of Yom tov? If the catharsis and process of shiva is so comforting and desirable for mourners, why did they take that away because of YT and not simply postpone till after YT. It's hard to say that after YT the shiva experience w be no longer necessary or needed. I saw someone suggest that "The souls of those who passed away now with abbreviated burials and shivas were so pure they ascended directly to heaven and did not require traditional mourning rituals." That is hard to hear because shiva (and YT cancelling shiva) is a rabbinic creation. Suggestions? Mordechai Cohen macohen613 at gmail.com From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 29 03:10:38 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:10:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why did Chazal cancel shiva bc of Yom tov In-Reply-To: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> References: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: That has reawakened in me the question of why did Chazal cancel shiva because of Yom tov? ====================================== As one who sat shiva at the cemetery on erev Pesach, I tried to keep in mind R'YBS's insight into true simcha as being lfnai hashem (which is what we're supposed to be on shalosh regalim). Seeing it through HKB"H's eyes it's all good (we are human and so don't experience it as such). So: She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, which will allow us all to see more clearly 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 micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:37 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 11:02:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Crazy Snakes and Dogs Message-ID: <20200730150237.GA14405@aishdas.org> We repeatedly discussed RYBS's statement that toothpaste is not ra'ui la'akhilas kelev and therefore doesn't need a hekhsher to be KLP. Not where I intended to go, but I should note that we never discussed the actual core issue -- the limits of the principle of achshevei. Since toothpaste is flavored, one could argue it does apply. RMF (IG OC 2:92), ROY (YD 2:60), the Tzitz Eliezer (10:25), says it does not apply when the flavored item isn't being eaten for the sake of the flavor. Excluding medicine -- and the same argument applies to toothpaste. The CI (OC 116:8) limits achshevei to spoiled chameitz, and not to mixtures containing chameitz. The "only" machmir about applying achshevei to medicines that I know of is the She'agas Aryeh (75). Now, back to the topic I did intent to post about.... So, the story goes (version taken from R Chaim Jachter at https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/cosmetics-and-toiletries-for-pesach-part-three-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter ): A charming anecdote that occurred in Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's Shiur at Yeshiva University in the 1970's (reported by Rav Yosef Adler and many others) is often cited in support of the common practice to be lenient. The Rav stated in Shiur that toothpaste is not Ra'ui Liachilat Kelev (unfit for canine consumption) and thus one is permitted to consume it on Pesach even if it contains Chametz. The next day in Shiur a student raised his hand and explained that he conducted an "experiment" the night before. He related that he placed toothpaste in his dog's feeding bowl to see if his dog would eat it -- and indeed, the dog ate the toothpaste!! Rav Soloveitchik simply responded, "Your dog is crazy." This story illustrates the ruling that we cited last week from Rav Soloveitchik that the standards of edibility are not determined by aberrant behavior. R Pesach Sommer recently found Tosefta Terumos 7:13, which is more famously available on Chullin 49b. It /has/ to be what RYBS was thinking of. The gemara says: Detanya: 5 [liquids] do not have [the prohibition] of gilui: brine, vinegar, oil, honey and fish gravy. Rabbi Shimon says: I saw a snake drink fish brine in Tzidon! They said to him: That [snake] was a shetaya, and one doesn't bring a proof from shotim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From hanktopas at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 20:29:43 2020 From: hanktopas at gmail.com (Henry Topas) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 23:29:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: >> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when >> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed >> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as >> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the >> same Sha'tz conclude what he started? > I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. I called it an office, not the occupent. But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same idea. I have a theory why: I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a *shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post! -Micha Shavua Tov, Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue for Kaddish Shalem? Thank you and Kol Tuv, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 02:36:36 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 12:36:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Henry Topas wrote: > > Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach > of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for > Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or > officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that > reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue > for Kaddish Shalem? What you describe is nothing I've found in the written Poskim. Where I grew up (various Yekkishe Kehiloth) the Ovel was "off the hook" when Hallel was recited. I see this being done in Yeshivishe minyonim, seemingly to "prevent" the Ovel from being Shatz for Hallel. (Also not recorded, AFAIK, except during Shiva.) So, my guess is, that since the Ovel wants to say as many Kadieshim as possible he "gets back the Omud" after Hallel - giving him one more Kaddish. This has no bearing on our discussion, it's a question (and answer) on a recent "Minhag/Hanhogo". Kol Tuv - Danny From emteitz at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 14:06:35 2020 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 17:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: Henry Topas wrote: However one looks at the office of shat"z, there is a difference between chazaras hashat"z and the rest of davening. For everything else, he is essentially a pacer, keeping everyone at the same point in davening, and the leader, in terms of kaddish and borchu. For the amidah, he is definitely a shaliach, whose role it is to be motzi those who cannot themselves daven. It would be possible theoretically not to have a shat"z, having all daven together, and then having one person who, at the appropriate times, would say kaddish and borchu. Chazaras hashat"z, however, must obviously have a shat"z. On days when Hallel is said, it is not a part of chazaras hashat"z; it is, in essence said *during *the chazara, after which the chazara is completed by saying kaddish shalem, which *is* a part of the chazara. (Hallel is in the same category as slichos on fast days, which was originally said during the shat"z's saying the bracha of Slach lanu. Then, too, I believe that someone other than the shat'"z could have led the slichos while the shat"z remained at the amud.) That the aveil should not lead Hallel, but should return for the kaddish because it is a part of the Amidah, is spelled out in the Mishna Brura (581:7). This leads to questioning the practice, when there is more than one aveil, of switching ba'alei tfila at Ashrei-Uva l'Tzion. There are some who object to the practice for that very reason, but apparently it is in the same category as allowing kaddish to be said by more than one person at a time: a concession to darkei shalom in a highly emotional setting. That the aveil not lead Hallel is the opinion of the overwhelming majority. The Mishna Brura loc.cit. brings the apparent opinion of the GR"A who goes even further, that the aveil not lead the entire Shacharis. The MB also cites, in the Biur Halacha in Siman 132, that there are those who bar the aveil from the amud on any day, other than erev Yom Kippur, that Lamnatzeiach is not said -- and does not limit it just to Shacharis on those days. (This is the minhag in my community.) Incidentally, in parts of Europe and in some shuls in EY, there is no shat"z for psukei d'zimra. The amud is unmanned until Yishtabach. If no one need be there, then certainly where there is one, there is no problem in replacing him for Yishtabach. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolberg at yebo.co.za Wed Aug 5 08:00:26 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 17:00:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Censorship in Aruch HaShulchan Message-ID: <014701d66b39$296ebf40$7c4c3dc0$@yebo.co.za> In 39:3, the AH writes: ger (beyamim kadmonim). This was obviously added for the gov censor, similar to Aruch HaShulchan ChM 388:7. Why do we not find the same in MB? Actually, AH OC was written after the same section in MB. Was the political climate in Novardok and Radin so different? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 10 00:52:25 2020 From: eliturkel at mail.gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:52:25 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potato chips and french fries Message-ID: A nice article on the various opinions of bishul akum for french fries and potato chips https://vosizneias.com/2020/08/10/chareidi-potato-chips-versus-regular-chips/ -- Eli Turkel From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 13:42:35 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:42:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Chaim Brisker on his 102nd Yahrzeit Message-ID: <20200811204234.GA9159@aishdas.org> R Elinatan Kupferburg posted this today on Facebook, lekhavod RCB's 102nd yahrzeit (21 Av). Translitarations mine, "q"s and all. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Today is the yahrzeit of [Maran shel kol Benei Yisrael, Rabbeinu Chaim haLevi,] R. Chaim Soloveitchik. It is far beyond this post, or this site, to capture any of the towering significance of Rabbeinu. For that, there's only one thing to do. You have to learn R. Chaim. You sit for hours poring over a sugya without R. Chaim, only to open the sefer and have R. Chaim, with his penetrating, elegant brilliance guide you through the depths of the sea of Talmud. It's as if you were overhearing snippets of a conversation without knowing the topic and then someone revealed it to you and now everything you heard suddenly falls into place. But I do want to make a couple of points about R. Chaim's legacy. Perhaps the most common metonym used to describe or exemplify what is referred to as "the Brisker method," is the cheftza/gavra distinction, often compared to the in rem/in personam legal distinction, though the two are not entirely analogous. It's part of a broader tendency to describe or teach "the Brisker method" by means of a few templatic distinctions: internal/external, intrinsic/accidental, action/result and so on, and has recently been reinforced by books or pamphlets which attempt to do the same. Unfortunately, not only are these gross simplifications and reductions, they entirely obscure what R. Chaim was actually doing, replace it with a different method of study (albeit one that is more prominent in some of his students, notably R. Elchonon Wasserman) and thereby miss his genius. The halakhic discourse, the lomdus, that pervades the Brisk Yeshiva that grew out of the study group around his son R. Velvel (the Brisker Rav) or the other yeshivas it birthed (including BMG), is dissimilar to this perception. 1. The words [cheftza] and [gavra] do not ever appear anywhere in the same piece in [Chiddushei Rabbeinu Chaim haLevi]!! Yes, really. (Except once in [Mekhilah 22:17,] when [gavra] is a quote from the Gemara, i.e. [hahu gavra]). There's a very good reason for that. Because making templatic distinctions is entirely different than what R. Chaim was doing. R. Chaim was elucidating the concepts that underlie and inform halakhic discourse. What is nature of a legal document? What type of obligation is the command is rid chametz? How does a blemish render an animal unfit for sacrifice? Under which mitzva is this prohibition included? R. Chaim's success is defined by precision of conceptual description, which is opposed to templatic rigidity. The only time that [gavra / cheftza] is actually widely used is in Nedarim 2b, in the distinction between vows and oaths, since there the distinction literally is the locus of the prohibition (vows designate an object as forbidden, oaths compel a person to act in a certain way). Often his discussion is not remotely similar to any of the popular "chakiras." For example, the section of the MT that gets the most attention in R. Chaim is the recondite [Hilkhos Tum'as Meis,] in which the pedestrian templates fail. Distinction is a helpful tool in the art of clarity and the halakhic world is composed of human agents and non-human objects, so parts of his discourse may approximate the infamous [gavra / cheftza] but it is by no means central or representative. To be fair, the templatic perception captures certain aspects of some of his chiddushim, and it does communicate the notion of underlying dyadic conceptual distinctions, but I wonder about its ultimate efficacy. 2. The distinctions that approximate [gavra / cheftza] are much older than R. Chaim. Just to give a few examples: - Rivash (Shut 98) extends the gemara's analysis in Nedarim to all prohibitions. - Rid (Eiruvin 48a) uses it describe the prohibition of transporting an object 4 amos in the public domain on Shabbos. - Chasam Sofer (Chullin 115b) uses it to distinguish different types of prohibitions. - Beis Halevi (Shut 3:51 - R. Chaim's father) uses it to explain the nature of the mitzva to eat korbanos. In a broader sense, this type of analysis can be found most acutely in (to give a few examples, moving backwords) Minchas Chinuch, R. Akiva Eiger, the works of R. Aryeh Leib Heller and R. Yaakov Lorberbaum, Peri Megadim, and, most strikingly, by R. Judah Rosanes, whose [Mishneh laMelekh] and [Parashas Derakhim,] two centuries ahead of their time, prefigured much of the Brisker Torah. Of course, the Gemara and Rishonim (Rashi and Meiri come to mind) are not absent of this lomdus either. A recent terminological case from Daf Yomi: take the discussion about perforating an old hole in a wine barrel on Shabbos 146b, where Rashi describes the halakhic crux as whether or not [paqa sheim 'pesach' mineih.] 3. R. Chaim did a lot of things. - He tightened a terminology. - He sharpened the analysis of halakhic concepts. - He displayed a new way of visualizing a sugya and working through it. - He identified the conceptual systematization that forms the substructure of the Mishneh Torah. - He developed a proto-philosophy of halakhic hermeneutics. - He opened the door for gaonim like R. Shimon Shkop to take analysis in a different direction. - By shifting the backdrop from practical halakha to halakha itself, he enabled us to see halakhic concepts not only as useful for determining practice, but as a way through which to view and interact with the world. Each of these deserves a sustained, independent analysis to identify the existing terminologies and approaches that R. Chaim drew on, and the extent of his own innovative prowess. Most powerfully though, he forever changed the halakhic consciousness. Conceptual analysis is now an inexorable part of the talmudic arsenal. Any advanced student of traditional Gemara who sits down to learn has been sensitized to the possibility of a conceptual distinction at play, even if they have no intention of using what they consider "the Brisker method." For some, R. Chaim's thought is so overwhelming that one can never look at Gemara differently again. But I might venture to say that its power lies in the recognition that even if someone does not walk down the path R. Chaim cleared, then that is precisely what they are doing: not learning like R. Chaim. R. Chaim fundamentally defined the contours of halakhic thought, and we are all in his debt. [Ki gadol sheim avinu beYisrael, ve'or Toraso male'ah teiveil -- misof ha'olam ad sofo mamash, umi zeh milomedei Sorah bedoreinu asher lo zarach alav or shimsho venogah Soraso.] From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Aug 11 14:37:14 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:37:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin Message-ID: If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? 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 zev at sero.name Wed Aug 12 08:07:36 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:07:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/8/20 5:37 pm, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another?s birchat hanehenin > and then did not eat, is it a bracha l?vatala for him? I don't see how it can be. The bracha had effect for the person who said it, so it was not wasted. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:23:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:23:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200812202354.GA10738@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 09:37:14PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin > and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? Berakhah levatalah sounds like a description of the "cheftza" of the berakhah. Not gavra-specific. And what would be levatalah, the mevoreikh's kavvanah to be motzi him? Safeiq berakhos lehaqeil is sometimes explained as safeiq deOraisa lechumerah where the deOraisa is sheim Hashem lashav. Along those lines, one could theorize that as long as the sheim wasn't said lashav, it's not a berakhah levatalah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals http://www.aishdas.org/asp is not as important as Author: Widen Your Tent what you become by achieving your goals. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Henry David Thoreau From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Sun Aug 16 08:51:59 2020 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 11:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Business with an Akum Message-ID: One is not permitted to do any kind of business with an Akum (idol-worshipper) on the day of their festival (nor 3 days prior in the Land of Israel) - Rambam Hil. Avodah Zara Ch. 9, Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 148.1. Question - Today, if I know a shop owner is a religious Xian, am I allowed to shop there on Sunday? Or if I know he is a religious Hindu, do I need to mark my calendar with all of the Hindu festivals and avoid his shop on those days? What about a traditional Chinese person on Chinese New Year? Or a Catholic on All Souls Day? If so, is there any halachic literature that lists all of the dates currently forbidden? (I?m also not allowed to sell to him on his holidays, and if I do (in error), I?m not allowed to enjoy the profits of that sale.) Alexander Seinfeld From joelirarich at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 03:47:26 2020 From: joelirarich at gmail.com (Joel Rich) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 06:47:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat hamazon Message-ID: <8FD081BF-3F42-460C-BE16-588F69071B09@gmail.com> A group of people are having Shabbos meal together in the dining room. They all get up to clear the main course dishes and bring them into the kitchen. The dessert flatware and glasses remain on the table Must they say birchat hamazon immediately upon return to the table? Kt Joel rich From micha at aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 09:00:38 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 12:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re'eih vs Shema Message-ID: <20200816160038.GA25978@aishdas.org> Because we say the words from Va'eschanan multiple times a day, I have heard (pun intended, sadly) a lot about shema when it means something more than the stimulation of neurons in my inner ear. Like the English word "listen", "shema" connotes paying attention, obeying ("eiqev asher shamata beQoli"), etc... So, what do we get from the use of "re'eih", as in the title of this week's parashah? In the past couple of days, I cam up with a theory about the difference between shemi'ah and re'iyah, but want to vet it with the chevrah. Shema introduces a theological fact we can only accept in the abstract. We don't even fully understand how One, Indivisible and Unique Hashem is. We are told to accept ol malkhus Shamayim on this basis, but the fact itself is one we can apprehend, not experience. Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite different than an abstract truth. (This seems to be consistent with "ein domeh shemi'ah lere'iyah". "Re'iyah" is something I can know first-hand.) Ta chazi in the bavli seems to also fit this pattern: Berakhos 58a: Rav Sheishes says to a min, "ta chazi" that I am brighter than you, proceding to show he figured out when the king would come. But then, the point was made at the beginning ot the story that R Sheishes was blind, so ht emay have been using the phrase pointed. Eiruvin 6b: ta chazi that the gates of Neharda'ah couldn't be locked. (And thus Shemu'el doesn't require they be locked in order to permit carrying.) Etc... All cases of "go and check for yourself". Nothing at all like "ta shema", which introduces learning a teaching. And of course "puq chazi". But in the Yerushalmi and the Zohar, "ta chazi" is used the way "ta shema" is in Bavel. So, maybe I am just reading too much into Bavli idiom. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a http://www.aishdas.org/asp person is to remain asleep and untamed." Author: Widen Your Tent - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From kbloom at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 14:30:40 2020 From: kbloom at gmail.com (Ken Bloom) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:30:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? Message-ID: Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Aug 17 15:37:49 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 22:37:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Dialectics? Message-ID: An important caveat (IMHO) from R' A Lebowitz to a number of shiurim from diverse speakers: Me-....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y, and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y? R' AL-I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just a helpful way to contextualize the issues I'm still thinking there's another paradigm shift coming, interested in hearing from others. 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 doniels at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 04:55:45 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:55:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > From: "Rich, Joel" > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3 (excuse the Hebrew for the ????? crowd) - translation from Sefaria (after removing a Chumra not in the original): ????? ????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ?????????, ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ?????????????, ???? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???????. "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi shebeirach [a blessing for those who fast on these days] and you intended to fast, this is sufficient, and no other form of acceptance is needed. " ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query. Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of getting the best of both worlds. Kol Tuv - Danny From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Aug 18 05:43:47 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:43:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query. Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of getting the best of both worlds. ============================================== When I learned this with my chavruta a few months back my comment was - I'd love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - machshava balma (random thought?) which has no halachic significance, amira (specific oral articulation) which is completely binding and amen/specific machshava(really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat indeterminate (not welcome in a brisker world?) 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 doniels at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 05:03:54 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:03:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Re'eih vs Shema In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMB reminded me of a vort I heard and said over at this week's Shabbos table. The opening word of the Sedra - Re'eih - is seemingly superfluous. "I present you today with [the ability to choose between] blessing or curse". What does "Look! I present you...." add? The answer was exactly as RMB proposed: > Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the > world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite > different than an abstract truth. We need to look around and see how choice and its consequences are built into the creation. Kol Tuv - Danny From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Aug 18 05:54:11 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 08:54:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. looking for sources and current custom Message-ID: <015401d6755e$aba2ff10$02e8fd30$@touchlogic.com> #! ... May a women uncover her hair in private? Halachah addresses public, semipublic, and private settings: Public: The Torah states that a woman must completely cover her hair in a public place. Some opinions state that under a tefach (a handbreadth, about three inches total) of hair may show. Semipublic: In a semipublic place, one opinion states that even if men are not usually found there, a married woman must cover her hair. When a woman covers her hair, this brings much blessing into the home Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory...." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required." Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? #2 https://www.yoatzot.org/questions-and-answers/1910/ Question: Does a woman have to cover her hair in front of her brothers? Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the presence of your father, husband and son. Where it is customary and not considered offensive, a woman may uncover her hair in front of her brother in the privacy of her own home. Is this leniency known/relied upon? Is this what people are doing out there today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 17:51:37 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:51:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200819005137.GB6547@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 02:55:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote: > I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3... > "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday > following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi > shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient... > "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you > may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." > This last line is -- in my mind -- parallel to your query. > Seems that answering Amen -- even with intention -- is one way of > getting the best of both worlds. I think the best of both worlds may only because you said amein to blessing the fasters, and not "me too" to someone's pledge to fast. There is mental acceptance during a related verbal act. Not a verbal acceptance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but the lighting of a fire. Author: Widen Your Tent - W.B. Yeats - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 17:48:02 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:48:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Dialectics? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200819004802.GA6547@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:37:49PM +0000, Joel Rich wrote: > Me- >> ....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I >> just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y, >> and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean >> choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y? > R' AL[ebowitz]- >> I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just >> a helpful way to contextualize the issues When discussing Brisker vs Telzher derakhim, everyone focuses on "Vus?" vs "Fahr vus?" (What? vs Why?) But another major different is R' Shimon's heavy use of the concept of hitztarfus -- the idea that a halakhah can be caused by the convergence of multiple factors. >From Widen Your Tent (by me), sec. 6.3: But there is a second distinction: Rav Chaim would explain an apparent contradiction by finding "the chiluk," the distinction between two cases that we initially thought ought to be the same, or the distinction between the viewpoints in two sides of a dispute. Rav Chaim's is a reductionist approach to analyzing a topic; it teaches how to understand something by identifying and understanding each of its parts. This methodology is suited for identifying "the cause" of a law. Rav Shimon also invokes hitztarfus, fusion or connectedness. It allows us to better ask, once we know the parts, how do they combine and interact to produce the given result? From this vantage point, rather than looking for a single cause, we can see that a given ruling can come from the way in which many halachic causes combine. Suppose we were tasked to do analysis to find out why some accident happened. For example: Why did David hurt his foot? Because a paint can fell on it. Why did the can fall? Because someone else accidentally knocked it off its shelf. Why did he knock it off the shelf? Because his nose itched, and he lifted his hand to scratch it, and also because the shelf wasn't on its brackets correctly and wobbled a bit. However, it's equally true that he hurt his foot because even though he usually wears iron-toed hiking boots, he chose not to wear them that that day. And why did he not wear his boots? Because when he was looking for something to put on his feet, someone else had turned on the light in another room, which changed his train of thought. And so on. Every event has many causes, each of which in turn has its own many causes. Rarely does an event only have one cause. We get used to identifying "the cause" of something. I would instead suggest that every event is like "the perfect storm"; each one has combinations of factors that come to a head at the same point. Similarly, Rav Shimon saw no reason to assume that it takes one cause to create an obligation or prohibition, rather than a combination of them. Which I then relate to R Shimon's approach to chessed as a widening of one's "ani" to include others. (The way we naturally have little problem giving to our children, because in a sense, they're "us".) I also use the difference between the focus on reductionism vs interconnectedness to explain a structural difference between Aristo's books and the Mishnah. WHich may be more relevant to the point: This difference between Semitic and Yefetic perspectives can be seen by contrasting the style of Aristotle with that of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Aristotle catalogues. He divides a subject into subtopics, and those subtopics even further, until one is down to the individual fact. Greek thought was focused on reductionism. To understand a phenomenon, break it down into smaller pieces and try to understand each piece. This is typical of the Yefetic perspective. That reductionism stands in contrast to the way Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi redacted the first Mishnah. The beginning of all of Mishnah could have said outright that Rabbi Eliezer ruled that the time for saying the evening Shema is from sunset and for the first third of the night. This is the way United States legal codes are arranged divided and subdivided into law, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, clauses, and items, with an effort to minimize cross-references. Instead the first Mishnah makes its point by invoking the priesthood, purity, and the night shifts in the Temple, "from the time Kohanim [who went to the mikvah to be purified during the prior day] may enter to eat their terumah until the end of the first shift." It describes the start and end times for the mitzvah using referents that one wouldn't normally assume when starting study. This is not to confuse the issue or needlessly close study from non-initiates, but because the key to understanding one mitzvah necessarily includes its connections to everything else. The proper time to say Shema cannot be understood without that context. The task Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi set out to accomplish with the Mishnah was not to explain the rationales of the halachah, and therefore the Mishnah spells out this holistic understanding. We are left not knowing why the rules of when Kohanim who needed the mikvah may eat terumah or the time the first shift in the Beis Hamikdash ended add meaning to the time span in which the nighttime Shema may be said. But the Mishnah does record the law in memorizable form, and apparently that includes helping us remember the halachah by association to the other halachos it relates to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur http://www.aishdas.org/asp with the proper intent than to fast on Yom Author: Widen Your Tent Kippur with that intent. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 12:42:04 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Limits of Parshanut Message-ID: <20200820194204.GA9194@aishdas.org> Parshanut doesn't have rules of pesaq. Nothing ever ends an opinion (lifsoq) once it is derived. So, those 98 ways become 9,604 ways, and then 941,192 ways as each interpretation gets its 98 interpretations. And then we have cases where those who pursue peshat -- Rashbam, IE, most famously -- give a peshat in the pasuq which they acknowledge runs against Chazal. But they feel Chazal weren't working bederekh peshat. (And the Rashbam is clear that he doesn't believe Chazal were wrong, or that anything he says about the pasuq has halachic signicance. E.g. see his comments on "vayhi erev, vayhi boqer".) But, procedurally, there still has to be rules for what kind of interpretation is valid and what aren't. I cannot believe that people can just make stuff up, and if fits a linguistic oddity of the text or a wording in some source of Chazal it's necessarily Torah. I don't know what the limits are. All I know is the limits of my own comfort zone. *To me*, "toras Hashem temimah" means that if I have a theory of how to understand something aggadic -- theology, mussar or parshanut -- it must be driven by material internal to the existing body Torah. If I am forced to an an entirely new understanding that no one proposed before to answer a scientific question, I would prefer leaving the question tabled, teiqu, than to run with this kind of innovation. To me, following a tendency I heard around YU from R YB Soloveitchik's students (my own rebbe, R Dovid, was yet more conservative), this is related to the difference between chiddush and shinui. "There is no beis medrash without chiddush" because learning Torah means extrapolating new points from the existing data. Extrapolation from and interpolation between existing Torah "data points" is chiddush. Shinui is innovation driven by something other than Torah. I am not sure if RYBS would say that in the context of parshanut in particular or not. As I said, as this point we're only discussing the not-that-relevant topic of "Micha's comfort zone". Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... http://www.aishdas.org/asp ... but you're the pilot. Author: Widen Your Tent - R' Zelig Pliskin - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 13:27:15 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:27:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vaccine Trials in Halakhah Message-ID: <20200820202715.GA32236@aishdas.org> Given the need for CoVID-19 vaccine challenge trials, I heard a number of podcasts on the topics of testing or volunteering to be a test subject for an experimental cure. But, it's hard to get people who are reading an email digest to take time for an audio. So, here's a link to something in text. https://thelehrhaus.com/timely-thoughts/signing-up-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-trial Here's the halachic section of the paper, minus all set-up and general ethics discussion. Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; http://www.aishdas.org/asp Experience comes from bad decisions. Author: Widen Your Tent - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF The Lehrhaus Signing Up for a COVID-19 Vaccine Trial By Sharon Galper Grossman and Shamai Grossman August 18, 2020 ... Undergoing Dangerous Medical Procedures in Halakhah Halakhah's approach to dangerous medical procedures begins with Avodah Zara 27b, which permits a hayei sha'ah - a sick individual with a limited time to live - to seek the care of a pagan doctor, because while we worry that a Jew-hating doctor might kill the Jewish patient, he might also effect a long-term cure. However, if the sick individual is unlikely to die, he may not turn to the pagan. The Gemara's explanation as to why we permit the hayei sha'ah to risk his brief remaining time alive is, "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" - we are not concerned about a risk to a short life because the pagan doctor might cure him. The Gemara derives this principle from the dilemma of the four lepers in II Kings 7:3-8. Banished from their city, which was struck by famine, they faced starvation. They saw a camp of Arameans possessing food, and were confronted by the following dilemma. If they were to enter the camp, the Arameans might kill them, yet they might feed them. Preferring possible immediate death from capture to certain subsequent death from starvation, the lepers entered the camp. There they discovered an abundance of food and survived. Tosafot (s.v. le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan) questions the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan." Doesn't Yoma 65a's permission to move stones on Shabbat to search for a hayei sha'ah buried underneath the rubble imply that we value even the briefest survival? Tosafot answers that in both cases we act in the best interest of the patient, rejecting certain death for an uncertainty that might prolong life. Thus, in Avodah Zarah, we disregard hayei sha'ah because otherwise the patient will surely die. In Yoma, we desecrate Shabbat for the hayei sha'ah because if we do not remove the stones, he will also certainly die. Based on Avodah Zara 27b and the story of the lepers, Shulhan Arukh Yoreh De'ah 155:1 codifies the principal "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan," permitting a hayei sha'ah to incur the risk of death at the hands of a pagan doctor in the hope of a long-term cure. Numerous modern poskim[7] rule that a hayei sha'ah may undergo a risky medical procedure if it offers the chance of a long-term cure. Shevut Ya'akov 3:75 explains, "Since the patient will certainly die, we push off the certainty of death and opt for the possibility of cure." One source, however, seems to prohibit the hayei sha'ah from undergoing dangerous medical treatment. Sefer Hasidim 467 describes a special herb remedy with the potential to kill or cure within days of use, accusing the women who prepared it of shortening the lives of their patients. One might interpret his denunciation as a rejection of the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan." Orhot Hayyim, Orah Hayyim 328:10 dismisses this interpretation, explaining that Sefer Hasidim only prohibits the risky remedy because there is an alternative safe treatment. He argues that in the absence of an effective alternative even Sefer Hasidim would accept the risk. Applied to our case ,the absence of an effective cure for COVID-19 might justify engaging in a risky process to find a cure. Does the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" permit healthy volunteers like Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial that injects half of the participants with a vaccine of uncertain benefit, exposing them to a lethal virus? To answer this question, we must determine if hayei sha'ah applies to healthy volunteers who do not face the risk of immediate death, the level of medical risk one may incur to achieve hayei olam (long-term cure), and the level of benefit required to justify the assumption of such risk. In addition, we must establish whether the volunteers may endanger themselves, in the absence of any personal gain, purely for the benefit of others, and whether this principle applies to experimental therapies where the benefit of treatment is unclear. Finally, if Halakhah permits participation, is one obligated to volunteer? Defining Hayei Sha'ah The discussion permitting dangerous medical treatment assumed that the individual had the status of hayei sha'ah - a terminal illness with a limited time to live. Can we interpret hayei sha'ah more broadly, and can we apply this understanding to human vaccine challenge trials involving healthy volunteers? Rishonim and early Aharonim do not define hayei sha'ah precisely. Their interpretation of the term ranges from a life expectancy as short as one to two days to longer than a year (see Table 1). Though these poskim debate the exact duration of life required to satisfy the halakhic definition of hayei sha'ah, they view a hayei sha'ah as an individual with an illness that compromises his life expectancy. At first glance, these poskim would not classify Sam, a healthy young volunteer, as a hayei sha'ah. However, Tiferet Yisrael Yoma, Yakhin 8:3, expands the definition, permitting a healthy individual to undergo smallpox vaccination, which causes death in one in 1,000 individuals, to attain long-term immunity. He dismisses the small risk of immediate death from vaccination so as to prevent future lethal infections and broadens the definition of hayei sha'ah to include situations where the cause of death is not present, but is only a statistical possibility. He bases this ruling on Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which, citing the Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, obligates a person to place himself in a possible danger to save his friend from a certain danger. So for example, if someone sees his friend drowning in the sea, he must jump in to save him though he risks drowning during his attempted rescue. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if a bystander is obligated to incur possible risk to rescue his drowning friend from a possible danger, a healthy individual may accept possible immediate peril to save himself from a possible future danger. Rabbi J.D. Bleich applies Tiferet Yisrael's definition of hayei sha'ah to healthy carriers of the BRCA mutation who act to reduce their high risk of cancer by opting for prophylactic surgery.[8] Though the cancer has not yet developed, they may incur the immediate risk of surgery to increase their life expectancy.[9] Even if we consider a genetic predisposition or a statistical probability a present danger, it is unlikely that unafflicted carriers of such a mutation will die within twelve months. By permitting a healthy individual to assume a one in 1,000 risk of immediate death to prevent a future lethal smallpox infection, Tiferet Yisrael suggests that Halakhah recognizes the importance of disease prevention, equating it with treatments for active life-threatening disease. His halakhic analysis and assessment might permit a healthy volunteer such as Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial to achieve immunity from COVID-19. However, such a trial involves substantial risk without proven benefits. In addition, because Tiferet Yisrael bases his position on the Yerushalmi which obligates an individual to endanger himself to save someone who faces certain danger, Tiferet Yisrael might even allow Sam to participate in the absence of any personal benefit, for pure altruism to save humanity. Defining a Permissible Level of Risk Aharonim debate the exact level of risk the hayei sha'ah may incur. Ahiezer 2:16:6 cites Mishnat Hakhamim to permit a dangerous treatment for a safek shakul - a risk of death less than or equal to 50%. If the risk of death exceeds 50%, the hayei sha'ah may not receive the treatment. This is also the opinion of Tzitz Elieze r 10:25:5:5. If the majority of physicians endorse treatment, Ahiezer permits a risk greater than 50% and does not define the upper limit of permitted risk. Because any COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial would receive the prior approval of an overseeing body of physicians, Ahiezer might permit participation for a risk higher than 50%. Beit David Yoreh De'ah II:340 permits a hayei sha'ah to receive a treatment that causes death in 999 out of 1,000 patients. In 1961, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58, permitted a treatment in which the odds were more than 50% that it would cause death. However, in 1972 (Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 3:36), he modified his position, permitting only a safek shakul. He concludes that a hayei sha'ah who seeks medical treatment with a greater than 50% risk of death may rely on the more lenient position of Ahiezer and receive the dangerous therapy. How does Sam's participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial compare to the risks that these poskim cite? They address situations where the person is terminally ill and faces imminent death, but do not define the level of risk a healthy individual may incur. However, Tiferet Yisrael permits a healthy individual to undergo vaccination against smallpox with a risk of death of one in 1,000. For all adults age 20-29 infected with COVID-19, including those with comorbidities, virologists estimate a 1.1% risk of complications requiring hospitalization and 0.03% risk of death,[10] an approximation that might either overestimate or underestimate Sam's true risk. Sam, who suffers no comorbidities, might be at the low end of the participation risk. Furthermore, because Sam lives in an area with a large number of COVID-19 cases, he is already at high risk of infection; participation only minimally increases this. Should he become infected, he will receive state-of-the-art care, which might reduce his complications. In addition, if researchers identify an effective treatment, that treatment would further diminish his participation risk. With appropriate risk minimization (e.g., careful titration of viral dose, early diagnosis, and optimal medical care), Sam might face little, if any, additional risk related to experimental infection. Alternatively, Sam's risk of death might be higher than estimated because the vaccine or the strain of virus injected might increase the severity of infection or the incidence of lasting harm. In addition, because the virus is so new and follow-up of those infected limited, the long-term risks of COVID-19 infection are unknown and might be greater than anticipated. Even if Sam's risk from participating is higher than estimated, his danger of death is still well below the 50% threshold that the above poskim use and the 0.1% risk that Tifferet Yisrael permits for healthy individuals undergoing smallpox vaccination. Definition of Hayei Olam - What Benefits Justify Risk? The above discussion, which explored a hayei sha'ah's acceptable level of risk with regard to medical treatments, assumed that the goal of treatment is to achieve hayei olam, a long-term cure. Poskim disagree about whether one may undergo a dangerous therapy for any other purpose, such as prolonging life in the absence of a complete recovery or the relief of pain and symptoms. Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58 and 3:36 prohibits risky treatment that merely prolongs life in the absence of complete recovery. Rav Bleich offers a different perspective.[11] Quoting Ramban's Torat ha-Adam,[12] which derives from the phrase, "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" the principle that "we are not concerned with possible [loss of] hayei sha'ah in the face of more life (hayei tuva)," Rav Bleich interprets "hayei tuva" to mean more life, and concludes that Ramban would permit dangerous medical treatment to achieve a longer period of hayei sha'ah, even in the absence of a cure. Iggerot Moshe Yore De'ah II:36 prohibits dangerous treatment for pain relief alone. Rav Yaakov Emden, Mor u-Kezi'ah 328, writes that surgery for pain relief is not "hutar le-gamrei," categorically permitted, suggesting that under specific circumstances it might be allowed. Tzitz Eliezer 13:87 permits morphine for a dying patient, although morphine might hasten his death, because nothing torments man more than intractable pain. Thus, Tzitz Eliezer would argue, a hayei sha'ah may undergo dangerous treatment not just to achieve hayei olam but also to achieve hayei tuva, longer life or pain relief. What is the benefit to Sam of participating in the human vaccine challenge trial? Will participation give him hayei olam, hayei tuva, or some other non-life prolonging benefit? First, vaccination itself or infection with or without vaccination might yield hayei olam -- a long-term cure and permanent immunity to COVID-19, akin to Tiferet Yisrael's smallpox vaccine. However, it is possible that the vaccine or infection will only provide temporary immunity. Here, participation will not achieve hayei olam, but only hayei tuva, but revaccination to boost his immunity could yield hayei olam. Second, because Sam lives in a high-infection zone, he faces a real risk of becoming infected even if he does not participate. Participation guarantees Sam priority in the allocation of medical resources and the best medical care should he become infected. By participating, Sam decreases his risk of complications and death from infection. Better care could improve his medical outcome and increase his chances of surviving COVID-19, thus facilitating hayei olam. Furthermore, if he develops immunity, he can no longer infect his family. The possibility of achieving long-term or short-term immunity to COVID-19, better treatment if infected, and relieving anxiety over infecting others are direct benefits to Sam for participating in the trial. However, it is possible that participation will provide no benefit, direct or indirect, to Sam. Sam's ultimate motivation for participation, like that of the thousands of volunteers who have come forward to participate in these trials, is altruism, helping to discover an effective vaccine that will save millions of lives. May one undergo a dangerous treatment in order to save others? Incurring Risk to Save Others Citing Talmud Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426 obligates one to place himself in a possible danger to save the life of someone facing certain danger. In Shulhan Arukh, Rav Yosef Karo and Rama omit this requirement. Sema Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 explains that Shulhan Arukh and Rama follow Rambam, Rif, Rosh, and Tur, who also omit this obligation. Pithei Teshuvah Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 suggests that they omitted this obligation because it contradicts Talmud Bavli (Niddah 61a and Sanhedrin 73a) and Jewish law typically follows Talmud Bavli. Radbaz 3:627 (53) was asked if a foreign government demands that a Jew undergo removal of a limb, a procedure presumed not to endanger his life, to save the life of another Jew, may one do so. He answers that one who consents acts with midat hasidut, a degree of piety, but if amputation will endanger his life, he is a hasid shoteh, acting illogically by violating the commandment va-hai bahem (which Sanhedrin 74a understands to mean that mitzvot are to live by and not die by). Similarly, in in Radbaz 5 Lilshonot ha-Rambam 1:582 (218), he addresses whether one is obligated to save the life of a fellow Jew, he explains that if the rescuer faces a safek mukhra - a certain danger - he has no obligation to act. But if the odds are greater that he will save his friend without endangering himself, failure to rescue transgresses lo ta'amod al dam rei'ekha. Tiferet Yisrael bases his teshuvah permitting a healthy volunteer to undergo smallpox vaccination on Talmud Yerushalmi and Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which obligate a person to place himself in danger to save a drowning friend. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if one may endanger himself to rescue his friend from danger, he may certainly assume risk of vaccination to save himself and achieve long-term immunity. In fact, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:174:4 permits one to accept a possible danger if it will save someone else from a definite danger. Tzitz Eliezer 13:101 rules that one may participate in experimental therapy and donate blood to benefit others if physicians determine that participation is risk-free. We consider such participation a mitzvah. In this situation, however, physicians cannot determine the risk of Sam's participating in the human vaccine trial and cannot claim that the trial is without risk. In Yehaveh Da'at 3:84, Rav Ovadia Yosef prohibits treatment with a risk greater than 50% based on Radbaz's classification of a rescuer who endangers himself for a safek shakul as a hasid shoteh. Rav Ovadia Yosef states that the majority of Aharonim, including Eliyah Rabba 328:8, Netziv ha-Emek She'eilah Re'eh 147:4, Aruh Ha-shulkhan 426, Mishpat Kohen 143-2, Heikhal Yitzhak Orah Hayyim 3, and Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 1:145, support this position. However, he permits kidney donation and even considers it a mitzvah, because the risk to the donor is low; according to the physicians with whom he consulted, 99% of donors recover fully from the operation. Interestingly, like Rav Ovadia Yosef, ethicists point to kidney donation as a model for determining the level of risk one may accept to benefit others[13,14] and consider the risk of death from participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial equivalent to the risk of death from kidney donation.[15] Because the risk of death from participating in this trial is significantly less than 50% and is comparable to the risk of kidney donation, Halakhah would seem to permit Sam's altruistic enrollment to save others from certain death from the virus. In fact, Sam's participation, which has the potential to save not just one life, like a kidney donor, but millions, is not only permitted but meritorious. One might even argue that Sam is obligated to participate based on lo ta'amod al dam rei'ekha. Rav Asher Weiss in Minhat Asher 3:122 cites Ta'anit 18b as proof that an individual may endanger himself to save the community, and in doing so performs a great mitzvah. According to Rashi, Turyanus, a Roman official, accused the Jews of murdering the emperor's daughter. He threatened mass execution unless the guilty party confessed. To save the community, Lilianus and Pappus, falsely do so. Turyanos executes them and spares the community. Rav Weiss concludes that an individual who gives his life to save the community has a direct path to the Garden of Eden. He states that when a nation is at war, there are unique rules of pikuah nefesh, the obligation to save a life. To win, the nation requires the self-sacrifice of not only its soldiers, but all those who fill essential, life-saving roles, such as police officers, fire fighters, security guards, and physicians. In the midst of a pandemic that has infected 13,000,000 and led to the death of 500,000 worldwide, one may reasonably conclude that we are at war with COVID-19, and that Sam and the other volunteers for a human vaccine challenge trial are voluntary conscripts. Though Halakhah permits one to undergo risky treatment to achieve a long-term cure, poskim, including Tiferet Yisrael Yoma 8:3, do not obligate participation. If the chance that the treatment will succeed is greater than 50%, Iggerot Moshe in Yore De'ah 3:36 and Choshen Mishpat 2:74:5 Rav Bleich explains that assuming risk for a long-term cure is permitted but not obligatory, because we trust a person to do what is reasonable to safeguard his body from danger. For those who are risk averse, undertaking a dangerous treatment or participating in a human vaccine trial would be unreasonable, while for the less conservative, such as Sam, the risk is acceptable. Experimental Therapy in Halakhah The discussion about dangerous medical treatment applies to therapies with known medical benefits. How does Halakhah approach risks incurred for experimental therapy with no proven benefit? Ttitz Eliezer 13:101 limits participation in experimental treatment to trials that are risk-free. Rav Moshe Dov Welner in ha-Torah ve-haMedinah, VII-VIII (5716-5717), 314, prohibits participation in clinical trials that lack scientific basis. He addresses a situation where the physician has no idea how to treat a disease and decides to experiment on a dying patient because the patient will die anyway. He calls such a physician a terrorist. The scientific reality surrounding human vaccine trials is vastly different than this extreme example. While the exact benefits of participation - such as whether the vaccine confers immunity and whether it will eradicate COVID-19 - are unknown, these trials employ vaccines that have already shown promise in preliminary trials and undergone extensive review by governmental and international agencies that have approved their scientific merit as potential vaccines. Such trials would not qualify as acts of desperation, implemented because the patient is dying anyway. Minhat Shlomo 2:82:12 permits participation in medical research, classifying the battle against disease as a milhemet mitzvah, a necessary war. Today we do not have a king or beit din to declare a milhemet mitzvah against disease and obligate the healthy to take dangerous medicines to help find a cure. He writes that because recognized experts, our contemporary equivalent of a beit din or king, take great care to execute these studies, one may participate. He explains that participation qualifies as holeh lefanenu, the presence of an actual sick person before us, which is considered a fundamental halakhic requirement for defining a situation as pikuah nefesh. In Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De'ah 280, Rav Yehezkel Landau prohibited autopsies because they are for the benefit of future patients, not those who appear before us now, and thus fail to meet a strict definition of holeh lefanenu.[16] Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explains that those autopsies were performed exclusively to increase the physician's knowledge, so are not comparable to experimental therapy. Rav Auerbach believes that contemporary medical research qualifies as holeh lefanenu because those sick with these diseases are before us, and the treatments to be tested are before us. He considers participation in clinical trials safek hatzalat nefashot - possibly life-saving - and not merely an academic exercise to increase scientific knowledge. Human Vaccine Challenge Trials Recently, Rav Asher Weiss[17] directly addressed the permissibility of participating in such trials. Reiterating his position in Minhat Asher 3:101 that one may endanger oneself to perform an essential communal role such as serving as a police officer, rescue worker, or even judge who risks death threats, he permits young, healthy individuals to participate in COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trials in controlled environments because the risk of complications or death is low, especially for those who are young and lack comorbidities, and the trial can potentially save thousands of lives. He notes the concerns of Noda be-Yehuda[18] and Hatam Sofer,[19] who prohibited autopsies because such procedures failed to satisfy their halakhic definition of holeh lefanenu. Rav Weiss explains that even if we do not define participation as pikuah nefesh, overriding biblical and rabbinic prohibitions, it is a mitzvah since it will save millions of lives. This social good permits Sam to assume the small risk of participation. Furthermore, one cannot extrapolate from the autopsies of the Noda be-Yehuda to contemporary scientific reality. It is highly unlikely that autopsies performed two hundred years ago affected medical care. He writes, "verifying the efficacy of a vaccine would not be categorized as a benefit in the distant future, but rather as a great mitzvah that is, in fact, halakhically considered to be possibly life-saving." He rejects Rav Auerbach's classification of medical research as milhemet mitzvah because this designation obligates participation in medical research, and Rav Weiss believes that participation is not obligatory. Only wars fought against enemy armies qualify as milhamot mitzvah, not public dangers such as wild animals and diseases, to which only the laws of pikuach nefesh apply. Conclusion The halakhic decisions cited above, including perhaps even Radbaz, would seem to permit Sam's participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial, because a healthy individual may incur a small risk of death, comparable to the risk permitted for other acts of altruism such as kidney donation to achieve long-term immunity. In addition, the potential benefit to society is immeasurable, preventing the death and suffering of millions by halting the spread of this pandemic and ending the physical, psychological, and economic devastation of prolonged social distancing. Table 1 ... [Okay, I couldn't pass the summary table of who defines chayei sha'ah as how long to the digest. So, go check the URL for yourself! Skipping to the foonotes. -micha] ... [7] Shvut Yaakov 3:75, Pithei Teshuvah Yoreh De'ah 339:1, Gilyon Maharsha Yoreh De'ah 155:1, Binat Adam 73, 93, Binyan Tziyyon 111, Tiferet Yisrael Boaz, Yoma 8:3, Ahiezer 2:16:6, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58 and 3:36, and Tzitz Eliezer 4:13, all permit a hayei sha'ah to undergo risky medical treatment for cure. [8] Bleich, J.D., "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures," Tradition, 37, no.3 (2003): 76-100, [241]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23262430 . [9] Bleich, J.D. "Genetic Screening: Survey of Recent Halachic Periodical Literature," Tradition, 34, no.1 (2000): 63-87, [243]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23261641?seq=1 . [10] Verity, R. et al, "Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis," Lancet Infect. Dis. March 30, 2020, [245]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20 )30243-7/fulltext . [11] Bleich, J.D., "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures," Tradition, 37, no. 3 (2003): 94. [12] Kol Kitvei ha-Ramban, II, 38. [13] Miller, G., Joffe, S., "Limits to Research Risks," J. Med. Ethics 35, 445 (2009). [14] Resnik, D., "Limits on Risks for Healthy Volunteers in Biomedical Research," Theor. Med. Bioeth. 33, no. 2 (April, 2012): 137. [15] Verity, R. et al, "Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis," Lancet Infect. Dis. March 30, 2020, [251]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20 )30243-7/fulltext. [16] For a more detailed discussion of the definition of holeh lefanenu in Covid-19, see our earlier Lehrhaus essay, [253]https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/sharpening-the-definition-of-h oleh-lefanenu-the-diamond-princess-and-the-limits-of-quarantine/. [17] Rav Asher Weiss, "Experimental Treatments for Coronavirus," Mosaica Press (2020): 5-7. [18] Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De'ah, 210. [19] Hatam Sofer Yoreh De'ah, 336. From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Aug 20 14:43:28 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:43:28 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. Message-ID: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> << Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory...." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required." Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? >> See Igeros Moshe Even HaEzer Chelek 1 siman 48 and also (and particularly) Igeros Moshe Orech Chaim chelek 5 siman 37:12: ????? ???? ???? ????, ???? ?????. ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????. ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????. ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? (???? ?"? ?"?), ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????. ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????. The covering of the head before her husband is not necessary. Since the prohibition of uncovering the head is only in the marketplace. And even at the time of her period, there is no prohibition in her house before her husband and children. And there is a hidur to do like Kimchit (Yoma 47a) but we have not heard that there are any modest like this and even in the earlier generations. And in the time of the Tanaim the married women were not accustomed so except for individuals like Kimchit. Note specifically *but we have not heard that there are any modest like this, and even in the earlier generations*. A reasonably translation of this is surely: neither Rav Moshe's wife, nor his mother did this. <> I think it depends on your community. In a modern orthodox community in which most women are not covering their hair when they go out in a public place either, I suspect many if not most of the few women who do cover their hair when they go out absolutely rely on this position, and sometimes more lenient ones inside their homes (ie only cover their hair when they go out, as per the pshat of the mishna & gemora in Ketubos as referred to by Rav Moshe, and not when in their home regardless of who is there). In the Satmar community where they shave their heads, no, I am pretty sure no women are relying on this leniency. Within the communities on the spectrum between these two poles, I suspect it varies, getting more likely as you move towards the more "modern" end and less likely as you move towards the more charedi and certainly Chassidic end. But Rav Moshe never having heard of it in his and in previous generations is a notable data point. Regards Chana From mcohen at touchlogic.com Thu Aug 20 17:04:40 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:04:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. In-Reply-To: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> Thank you for your comments RCL wrote... Note specifically *but we have not heard that there are any modest like this, and even in the earlier generations*. A reasonably translation of this is surely: neither Rav Moshe's wife, nor his mother did this. True; although I would like to hear what the Feinstein children testify about their mothers hanhaga.. RCL wrote... Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the presence of your father, husband and son. R moshe as quoted only mentions husband/children. Where/how do we expand this to her brother? if it was bc of the simple pshat of the Mishna & gemora in Ketubos, then everyone should be ok inside (not just brother/family) and if the heter is based on inside - is uncovered hair allowed when swimming w husband/children alone (but outside)? (it is illogical to suggest that there is a continual obligation to cover her hair outside, even when a permissible situation such as alone or only with other women) Mc From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Aug 20 17:56:42 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 01:56:42 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. In-Reply-To: <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> References: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <000001d67755$efd44600$cf7cd200$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMC writes: <> Actually, this wasn't me, this was the yoetzet website you quoted. <> I assume that the reasoning behind the website's psak is based on with whom she is allowed to have yichud. Rav Moshe also doesn't specifically mention father, and yet the logic of the website including father as automatically on the same page as husband and children would seem to be driven by the unity of halacha regarding yichud. The yichud status of brothers is a bit more complex, as a certain level of yichud is allowed, but not completely, and hence they would seem the logical extension to question, and one could understand a view that, to the extent yichud is allowed, so should this be. >Mc Regards Chana From akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com Fri Aug 21 03:06:29 2020 From: akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 06:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > I'd love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - > machshava balma (random thought?) which has no halachic significance, > amira (specific oral articulation) which is completely binding and > amen/specific machshava (really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat > indeterminate (not welcome in a brisker world?) It seems to me that what you're really asking is: How/why does "Shomea k'oneh" work? Why is it that if I listen to someone say something, and we both have the correct "specific machshava", it is considered "as if" I had said it myself? And, just as importantly, to what *extent* is it considered as if I said it myself? As an illustration of this principle, R' Danny Schoemann cited the Kitzur in 127:3 > Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday > following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi > shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient... > Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, > you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself. I'd like to offer another illustration: If a person is saying Shemoneh Esreh when the shul is at Kaddish or Kedusha, Mechaber 104:7 writes that "He should be quiet and pay attention to the shatz, and it will be like he is answering." And the Mishne Berura 104:28 explains: "It will be like he is answering for the purpose of being thereby yotzay for Kaddish and Kedusha, but nevertheless it is not considered a hefsek." The halacha of Shomea K'oneh seems to allow us to have it both ways: We have *effectively* said something, yet not *actually* said anything. [Email #2. -micha] Addendum to what I wrote a few minutes ago: I know that Shomea K'Oneh is effective even when one does not actually respond "Amen". After all, a precise translation of the phrase would NOT be "listening is like answering Amen", but is rather "mere listening is like repeating it yourself." And yet, I seem to recall that there are some specific cases where the halacha differs depending on whether the person actually said "Amen" aloud, vs where he merely listened with all the correct intentions. Does anyone else know of such cases? Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 21:33:33 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:33:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: To prevent the spread of COVID see https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the shofar? Does it affect the sound? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Fri Aug 21 04:57:08 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:57:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21/8/20 12:33 am, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > To prevent the spread of COVID see > https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ > > What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the > shofar? Does it affect the sound? The OU says it doesn't appear to. https://www.ou.org/covid19/ 9. Shofar: An appropriate precaution during shofar blowing would be to place a surgical mask over the wider end of the shofar, as this does not appear to alter the sound of the shofar blast. Some may point the shofar out an open window or door, or near and towards the front wall or aron kodesh, facing away from the congregation. A single shofar should not be used by multiple people, and no barrier should be placed between the shofar and the mouth of the one blowing the shofar. Poskim have addressed when and how much to sound the shofar where the time in shul is seriously limited -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 12:07:00 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 15:07:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 07:33:33AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ > What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the > shofar? Does it affect the sound? As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does not affect the sound. But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer without specifying which kind(s) of masks they experimented with. The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else with sensitive hearing in the minyan, you need them to say they don't hear a difference if they personally wish to be yotzei.) But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use. Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices. Chodesh Tov! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but add justice, don't complain about heresy, Author: Widen Your Tent but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Sat Aug 22 17:47:42 2020 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 20:47:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:45 PM Micha Berger wrote: >> What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the >> shofar? Does it affect the sound? > As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does > not affect the sound. > But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer ... > The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound > of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else > with sensitive hearing in the minyan... > But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the > resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use. > Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from > the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices. I blow shofar for my shul. I have placed a surgical mask on the shofar and blew the shofar for the Rav both on and off without him looking at the shofar. He did not hear a real difference and I concurred. You can get a different sound from the shofar depending on how you place it on your lips and the amount of air used. Rav Shulman of YU / YI Midwood suggests blowing under your tallit or at a door without a mask on the shofar. From zev at sero.name Sun Aug 23 01:04:56 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 04:04:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does > not affect the sound. No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound, and is therefore permissible. I have no idea whether they're right, but this is what they say, and they know the halacha, so I assume they've done whatever is necessary to determine the metzius. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 06:11:31 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 09:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200823131130.GA6504@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 04:04:56AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does >> not affect the sound. > No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound... As per the rest of the post you're quoting: My comment was that they take it for granted that the mask(s) they tested with are indicative of the mask a member shul may be using. I would not. (Had I been in the OU, I would have been more specific about which brand mask.) But I'm not questioning their pesaq that listening on the other side of the mask is the original qol and not a "qol havarah". ("Hatoqeia lesokh habor, mishnah RH, on top of 27b in Vilna Bavli) I therefore isolated their halachic stance which from their depiction of the mtzi'us. Because I wanted to raise the question whether, even leshitasam, is a piano tuner or other person with sensitive hearing can hear a difference the rest of us can't, would he be yotzei. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect http://www.aishdas.org/asp painting? It's easy. Author: Widen Your Tent Make yourself perfect and then just paint - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 19:45:48 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 22:45:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault Message-ID: . At the Eglah Arufa, the zekeinim declare, "Our hands did not spill this blood! Our eyes did not see!" I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: > The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly > responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any > stranger from our city without food (so that he might have > been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or > without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected > on a dangerous road)." How can the zekeinim have been so sure? Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed? We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident? I considered the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas Orchim organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never will happen. (The three listed there, if I read it correctly, are Ben Sorer Umoreh, Ir Hanidachas, and a house getting tzaraas.) But it's *not* listed there, so I suppose it might have happened, or at least, *could* happen. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Sun Aug 23 06:35:32 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 13:35:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed? > > We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident? > > ??????- I?m not sure these are Mutually exclusive. Perhaps they are saying that the fault is not systemic and of course we have to see where we fell short and try to improve on it Kt Joel RichTHIS 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 zev at sero.name Sun Aug 23 07:39:22 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 10:39:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22/8/20 10:45 pm, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I considered?the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only > done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the > Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas?Orchim > organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever > occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been > listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never > will happen. The answer seems very simple. Not even the most thorough hachnassas orchim will ever prevent all murders, because most crimes are *not* committed out of need. The idea that the victim was actually a robber who was killed in legitimate self-defence, but in a further plot twist he only robbed out of desperate need, and had the city's elders done their job this would never have happened, is very far-fetched. The overwhelming likelihood is that he was an innocent person who was killed by a robber who was acting out of greed or sheer wickedness, as *most* robbers do. The Zekeinim are merely ruling out that far-fetched scenario in which they would bear some responsibility. And if you ask why, in that case, do they have to go through this whole rigmarole to rule it out, I suggest that it's so that this possibility is always on their minds, and they do their utmost to make sure that in the unlikely even that a body is ever found they should be *able* to make this declaration. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Aug 23 06:27:37 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:27:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Going swimming with your sister Message-ID: I always thought that brothers and sisters (even teenagers) could go mixed swimming privately just the immediate family because we assume that there are no hirhurim among immediate family members. However, I listened to the Headlines podcast where he interviewed an Israeli posek from Machon Puah who claimed that it was forbidden. Anyone have any sources? Piskei Halacha from modern poskim? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Aug 23 09:24:06 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:24:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee Message-ID: From https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-will-be-travelling-and-would-like-to-know-if-there-is-a-concern-of-bishul-akum-with-coffee-a-consumers-question I will be travelling and would like to know if there is a concern of bishul akum with coffee? (A consumer's question) OU Kosher Certification Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel. Raw coffee beans are inedible, a... See the above URL for more. From zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 24 09:27:09 2020 From: zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com (Zalman Alpert) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 12:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As > previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh > al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel. > Raw coffee beans are inedible, a... Great example of what DR Hayym Soloveitchik wrote about in his seminal essay Rupture and Reconstruction. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Aug 24 10:49:59 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 13:49:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200824174959.GF11765@aishdas.org> Bishul aku"m only applies to foods that are olim al shulchan melakhim. Qiddush can be made on chamar medinah. Seems to be a lower standard, when it comes to drinks, as the masses are unlikely to be pickier than their kings. The AhS (OC 272:12) ranks yayin and then sheikhar ahead of other drinks, but does include sweetened tea among the things one may make qiddush on. Similarly, IM OC 2:75. (Likely an indication of the price of sugar, RYME names tei matoq in particular as chamar medinah, not just writing "tei". Another measure of their poverty is his discussing their general use of raisin wine, as a reason why they were allowed to choose sheikhar even if wine was available. Meaning, I don't know if the AhS would allow this choice for us today.) But I am wondering benogei'ah to our original topic is whether it's possible to formulate a consistent shitah in which coffee can not be used for Qiddush and also cannot be used if bishul aku"m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message http://www.aishdas.org/asp that God is not yet discouraged with Author: Widen Your Tent humanity. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabindranath Tagore From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Aug 24 11:18:23 2020 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 14:18:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: I have an even better solution. Have the baal tekiah get a Covid test now and then a couple days before R?H and if both tests are negative and he is in good health, the chances of him having the virus is almost zero. From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 24 16:08:22 2020 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 7:02 PM Cantor Wolberg wrote: > Have the baal tekiah get a Covid test now and then a couple days before > R"H and if both tests are negative and he is in good health, the > chances of him having the virus is almost zero. It is possible to catch the virus after getting tested. Most tests take days to come back; by then you are contagious. Only if you test positive for antibodies, do you know that you have had the virus. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Aug 24 18:33:48 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:33:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee Message-ID: . According to the OU at the link posted, > Nonetheless, the Pri Chodosh writes that brewed coffee need > not be bishul Yisroel, since coffee is primarily water, and > water does not require bishul Yisroel. I have difficulty following that logic. Granted that if one looks at the ingredients, coffee is indeed primarily water. But why is that fact more relevant than the importance that society gives to this beverage? R' Micha Berger pointed out that Chamar Medinah "seems to be a lower standard" than Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim, and I'd agree. But I think it's irrelevant, because it is obvious to me that coffee is Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim. The dessert at a state dinner would not be s'mores and Slurpees; it would be elegant cakes and coffee. I suspect that for some reason (possibly the fact that Bishul Akum has little to do with kashrus and much to do with limiting our social contact with non-Jews), the rabbis went out of their way to find leniencies for it, and drinks is an example of such a leniency; I suspect that it never occurred to Chazal to extend the gezera beyond solid foods. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Aug 26 09:49:29 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:49:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Honoring Step Parents & More Message-ID: Please see https://vosizneias.com/2020/08/26/honoring-step-parents-more/ I found this to be a very interesting article YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 23:07:38 2020 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:07:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: It seems more reasonable to blow under the tallis without a mask. After a while, the tokea has to shake water out of the shofar. Slightly challenging with a mask on it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 23:11:27 2020 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:11:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Davening_at_home_on_Yamim_Nora=E2=80=99im?= Message-ID: This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. We will miss out on much of the ?experience? of the piyutim. Does anyone know of guidelines for what to do at home, such as part of chazarat haShatz? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 05:57:18 2020 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:57:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im Message-ID: RChaim Tafel wrote: > This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul > for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. > We will miss out on much of the "experience" of > the piyutim. Does anyone know of guidelines for > what to do at home, such as part of chazarat haShatz? Say them all except for the few you should only ever say when you are shatz, for example the netilot reshut, like all the misod chakhamim unevonim lines and such as the Ochila (which really, in my opinion, despite the popular tunes, the tzibbur should never say, as it is the netilat reshut for the shatz to insert the seder ha'avodah). Also skip obviously hineni he'ani mima'as, as it is for the shatz. Also skip the E-lohein vE-lohei Avoteinu heyei 'im pifiyot (which in my opinion the shatz shouldn't ever say, as it is a prayer for the shatz' success recited by the public). Finally, obviously whenever the cachzor calls for reciting 13 middot, depending on the poskim you follow, either skip or recite with te'amim. Otherwise I see no reason why you couldn'T beautifully sing your way through the entire machzor. But don't use one of these butchered machzorim, go for the real, unabbreviated, full and complete Rdelheim. (I am assuming you're ashkenazi, because Sefardi piyutim are altogether different). [Email #2. -micha] By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata Hu E-loheinu. In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. I am obviously totally tolerant, but it is still poetically wrong, objectively so. ;-) Ketiva vachatima tova, -- Mit freundlichen Gren, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Aug 28 06:14:15 2020 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 07:53 AM 8/28/2020, Chaim Tate wrote: >This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul for Rosh Hashanah and >Yom Kippur. >We will miss out on much of the ?experience? of the piyutim. >Does anyone know of guidelines for what to do at home, such as part of >chazarat haShatz? The YI of Midwood sent out an email saying that no piyyutim will be said during the davening on the Yomim Noraim. After all in many shuls the davening on Shabbos has been curtailed due to concerns about the virus. (no speeches and no singing). In some shuls people have been told to daven up to Baruch She'omer before coming to shul. So you won't be missing anything if other shuls follow the YI of Midwood! Personally I hope they do. Long davening can lead to the spread of the virus even with proper social distancing. Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said the it is better to daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more that 15 minutes , IIRC. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From crclbas at aol.com Fri Aug 28 06:49:54 2020 From: crclbas at aol.com (BenS) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:49:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Yomim Tovim References: <2007338277.6646156.1598622594128.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2007338277.6646156.1598622594128@mail.yahoo.com> The RCA And? ?YU have sent suggestions for shuls who want to skip certain piyutim. ASk your Rov for these guidelines. This can also be used for those who must daven at home. But be sure to arrange for Shofar on the second day. Minimum of 30 Kolos are needed. Shonoh Tovah!! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Aug 30 06:53:54 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 13:53:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos Message-ID: Please see https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-want-to-order-a-new-cell-phone-and-am-not-particular-when-it-will-arrive-am-i-permitted-to-place-an-order-online-if-the-website-indicates-the-package-will-arrive-on-saturday/?category&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shsh%20Ki%20Teitzei%205780%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=32470835&spUserID=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&spJobID=1764350018&spReportId=MTc2NDM1MDAxOAS2 YL I want to order a new cell phone and am not particular when it will arrive. Am I permitted to place an order online if the website indicates the package will arrive on Saturday? | OU Kosher Certification The issue here is whether arranging a delivery for Shabbos constitutes Amirah li?akum (instructing a non-Jew to perform melacha on Shabbos), which is prohibited. One might assume that this is analogous to handing a letter to a non-Jew on Friday and a... oukosher.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Aug 29 19:57:19 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 22:57:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d Message-ID: . In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? This may happen elsewhere too, but this case stands out because the form changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out to Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the contrast? If the third person was reasonable in the first part, why switch to the first person later on? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Aug 31 13:58:44 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-want-to-order-a-new-cell-phone-and-am-not-particular-when-it-will-arrive-am-i-permitted-to-place-an-order-online-if-the-website-indicates-the-package-will-arrive-on-saturday > One may not place an order if the delivery will definitely take place > on Shabbos. For example, one cannot send a package with UPS or FedEx > on Friday and select ?next day delivery?. Similarly, one cannot order > a refrigerator or washing machine from a store and arrange for a > Saturday delivery. I disagree with the author on this. Since they could choose to deliver after Shabbos and still fulfil their obligation, you are not telling them to deliver on Shabbos. In the winter this could actually happen. But even in the summer, when you can be fairly sure they won't do that, that's their choice not yours; if they did arrive after Shabbos you would have no right to complain, so you are not asking them to work on Shabbos. Only if they guarantee that "all deliveries will be made during business hours" or something similar would you not be allowed to order a Saturday delivery. And even then, if there's a space for delivery notes, and you write that late night delivery will be OK, that should be enough to permit it, even if you can be fairly sure it won't change anything. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Sep 1 06:53:18 2020 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:53:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > > From: Akiva Miller > > In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today > to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) > > Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > This may happen elsewhere too, I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the G-d of Avraham, etc. Therefore, the layman refers to the G-d of the Kohane, whose biblical role is to teach of Hashem and His Torah and therefore conceptualized Hashem more accurately. (I would have to concede that at first sight this does not work in cases where the person bringing the Bikkurim is actually greater than the Kohane. One can answer that it's a matter of *lo plug, *using a fixed formula for everyone at all times, following the normal situation. Or I would modify my explanation to say that the Kohane may not necessarily have a higher conceptualization but, through his avodah, a unique one not shared by others, which is relevant to the Bikkurim bringer in his role as such.) but this case stands out because the form > changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out to > Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the contrast?... > I think the above explanation works to explain this. In fact, note that the farmer is referring to the G-d of our "ancestors," meaning G-d as understood by the avos. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 12:29:01 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:29:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901192901.GA18013@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:53:18AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > This may happen elsewhere too, > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > G-d of Avraham, etc... I would have written something very similar, if RAM's email weren't still flagged "to do" in my email box when RZL's came in. However, I wouldn't have used the word "hasagah". I would have talked about the need to list "E-lokei Avraham", "E-lokai Yitzchaq" and "E-lokai Yaaqov" separately. To me, it speaks to the idea that the avos each had distinct relationships with the Borei. The "G-d of Avraham" was a different relationship than the G-d Yitzchaq "had" (kevayakhol). I don't know how RZL meant the word "hasagah", but to me it speaks to knowing *about* something. As in greater people have greater understandings of what G-d is. I would instead has said that "E-lokekha" is about the G-d the kohein has time to relate to more constantly than the farmer does. And it might also make the Vidui a statement about the farmer's relationship with G-d. Rather than who has more relationship, but about kidn of relationship. After all, the kohein may be learning, teaching and doing avodah all day, but the farmer teams up with G-d and relies on G-d to produce his crop. That's the point of the vidui -- that the G-d of Yetzias Mitzrayim gets credit for more day-to-day things my success. Something a kohein may only get more vicariously. So, he's saying to the kohein, "G-d is not only how you relate to Him from your ivory tower -- 'Your G-d', realize He also is intimately involved in my life and everyday life." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Interesting quote my signature generator chose from the perspective of being this close to the end of 5780. (Although we must remember, we are likely the first generation for whom life is normally so wonderful, this year qualified as a notably "bad" one.) -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 15:54:36 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901225436.GC18013@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:30:40PM -0400, Ken Bloom wrote: > Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one > should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in > finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. I'll give you "or elsewhere". Here's what I do. 1- During the year, I try to keep a cheshbon hanefesh. Laziness and momentum being what it is, that means that I usually have a journal of the decisions and reactions of a few 1 to 2 month stretches during the year. So, something I do early in Elul is review those, see patterns, what changed during the gaps... And trying to compensate changes because I was just focused on different things in different parts of the year. I then try to mentally fill in the gaps, as I can. And then I make a list of those issues in my reactions, decisions and actions that seem to have recurred a lot. It's often not the issues I was thinking I was failing at before I looked through notes. For that matter, even if you "just" keep a diary of your responses to the week -- not what happened to you, but how you responded to it -- from now to RH would give more insight to what habits and middos might really need the most attention. And to make that list, I try for a list of 2 to 4 items that both need the most attention and yet balanced with things I can actually tackle. For example, I have a long-running battle with ka'as. But it may not be the chink in the armor most ready to move. I might want to work on my frustration threshold, noting that my temper is very often the sum of frustration plus having someone I can pin blame on. And the plan has to be incremental. Not "starting YK I never will..." or "will always", but "starting YK I will take the first step to... which is..." For exmple, not expressing frustration in a given set of situations. Or maybe right after work for the first hour I'm home. Or whatever. 2- So much for correcting past mistakes. My other step is something Bank of America mislabeled Hoshin Planning that I adapted for life. https://www.aishdas.org/asp/hoshin-plan 2a- Find a Mission Statement At this point, I have a mission statement I aspire to live by. The first year, I didn't. I picked a quote from a sefer that at the time (and still) really moved me. Look for something from a seifer (including the siddur) that sums up life's mission for you. Is it about deveiqus? And if about deveiqus -- what does that mean to you? Knowledge (as per the Rambam)? Experiencing the Divine? Having a relationship with Hashem? Partnering with Him in His Work -- and what is His Work? Or maybe you see it in terms of sheleimus or temimus. But then, what is a person supposed to be, that you can talk about being more perfect at being one? Is it emulating Hashem? Or bein adam lachaveiro? Or maybe you're on another page altogether -- you see the Torah's mission for your life in terms of Jewish Nationhood, or humanity. And I realize many of those will yield different phrasing of nearly the same answer. But only nearly the same. There could be situations where connotations matter and have a nafqa mina lemaaseh. But in any case, it has to be moving and inspiring based on the way HQBH made you. In short -- a sentence or two about how you see what the Torah is telling you to be at this point in your life. After the first year, you tweak it and revise it as you change. 2b- Drilling down A Mission Statement is pointless if it doesn't have a way to influence action. In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for the firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could help reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division. His group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc... The idea is that there is an individual programmer like myself can be shown how my program fits in the team's goal, the group's goal and so on up to the firm's goal as written up in the Mission Statement. Similarly life's Mission Statement. We can divide it and subdivide it into managable lists. Maybe three bullet items as top-level goals to make the mission statament happen. And 2-4 each for each of those goals to make subgoals and so on. The idea is to get to the point that when you decide to go to the kitchen to get a cup of coffee, you have a way to relate that decision to the approach to living al pi haTorah that you framed for yourself. Let me give an example, taken from the above blog page. Since I wrote a book based on R Shimon's haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher, the quote would be no surprise. For that matter, ch. 2 is titled "Mission Statement" and is a collection of thoughts about the openining sentence of the haqdamah. See the first paragraph of the copy in Widen Your Tent sec 1.1, pg 45 of the book or pg 4 of https://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf#page=4 So, my orignal mission statement translates to (it is important to be in first person singular): [My] greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that [I] walk in His ways. Now I can divide that into three subgoals: - Having a connection to G-d - Internalizing His Will - Being a conduit of Hashem's Good into the lives of others. Internalizing His will, for example, was first subdivided into - Daily learning (which is what drives projects like AhS Yomi) - Daily Mussar work (like what I'm describing in this post), and - Regular in-depth learning -- chavrusos, shiurim, etc... Notice at this point I can start filling in things I can do this year. What learning? Which shiurim? As in part 1 -- which middos and what are the first months' exercises to chip away at them. (And buying a pretty new notebook. Somehow I do best at cheshbon hanefesh when I have a kewl new toy to do it with.) Hopefully, by month end when this "Spiritual Hoshin Plan" is done, I can pause in the middle of the workday and be able to say for myself that I'm putting up with this irate trader on the phone (I work for a Hedge Fund) so that I can pay for tuition (goal 3.2.4.2.5 or some-such), I can develop my personal creativity (as per 1.2... as being in the image of the Creator is something I view as a Mussar goal), etc.. And thereby give sanctity to an otherwise mundane (and stressfull) activity. And then every year things shift. Both in how I look at the world and in what are the pressing issues requiring more attention. Where parenting sits in the hierarchy was very different when I started than now that my youngest is a teenager. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. http://www.aishdas.org/asp It preserves health, promotes convalescence, Author: Widen Your Tent and helps us cope with adversity. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 12:46:48 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:46:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901194648.GB18013@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:45:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In > the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: >> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly >> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any >> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have >> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or >> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected >> on a dangerous road)." > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed > through unnoticed? Does it say that unnoticed strangers are included? The gemara (Sotah 46b) says (original at https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.9 ): Would it cross our minds that BD were murderers? Rather [they are saying]: He did not come to us and we dismissed him without food. We didn't see him and leave him without accompaniment. My translation matches the TMS's, minus their parenthetic comments. (Which I will now assume is the author's insertions, rather than part of the medrash.) The two phrases "lo ba leyadeinu" and "vera'inhu" seem to me to mean the BD are saying that the didn't neglect anyone they knew of. That not knowing the person was in town would be one of the reasons they wouldn't be guilty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the http://www.aishdas.org/asp better if possible, and of changing himself for Author: Widen Your Tent the better if necessary. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 05:00:31 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos Message-ID: . Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day away. I think it is assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. In contrast, if I request Monday delivery, that would be okay, even though I know that they'll be working for me on Shabbos, because it was their choice to work on Saturday rather than Sunday. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 07:11:20 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:11:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:00:31AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? Well, if there isn't a contracted delivery date of Shabbos, then it's their choice whether to do melakhah for you on Shabbos, Friday or Sunday. The package could sit around in a transfer facility for 25 hours while they deal with more urgent packages if it's not the delivery date. The choice is theirs. But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. I guess in the case of (eg) 3 day delivery, since it wouldn't violate the contract to get it there in 2, someone might argue that you aren't asking them to do the delivery on Shabbos. But I don't know if mutar alternatives matter even when they're implausible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Sep 2 11:46:49 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:46:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66cf413b-bbfa-c02e-885f-8a8bb7e152ce@sero.name> On 2/9/20 8:00 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day > away. I think it is?assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know > that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. I agree, *if* you know where it's coming from, and that it's not bich'dei sheyei'asu without working on Shabbos. But in the general case you don't know that, and I don't see why you have to worry about it just on spec. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 17:45:46 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:45:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said that it is better to daven a > little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that > selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more than 15 > minutes, IIRC. It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time that's been taken from them. Much more important is the speed at which it is said. If the length of time would remain constant, but pages were skipped so that the rest could be said carefully and attentively, THAT'S what Chazal meant by "better to daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Sep 2 13:49:48 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:49:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. ------------------------------- And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's Saturday delivery and you say nothing? KVCT 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 akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 18:08:38 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:08:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: . In the thread "Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im", R' Arie Folger wrote: > By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper > recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused > wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata > Hu E-loheinu. > > In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to > read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next > line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the > opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, > so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the > proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. I can see where some people might read the above, and feel that Rabbi Folger is being subjective and arbitrary in his choices of "proper" and "wrong". I had my brain all psyched up to spend the next hour or so writing a post to explain how he is objectively correct, and then I remembered that we covered this ground four years ago. Anyone who wants to learn more about how the recitation of these piyutim got messed up is strongly invited to review the thread "conservatism in davening" at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CONSERVATISM%20IN%20DAVENING Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mzeldman2 at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 00:33:32 2020 From: mzeldman2 at gmail.com (Moshe Zeldman) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 10:33:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If one should not say ?starting YK I will never...?, then how does that fit with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the vidui is saying ?and I will never do X again?? It sounds difficult to read into the Rambam that he means ?I?m still going to be doing X but I have a plan to eventually stop? On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 4:12 wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > > avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/ > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms > > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Hashem your G-d (Zvi Lampel) > > 2. Re: Hashem your G-d (Micha Berger) > > 3. Re: What to do in Elul? (Micha Berger) > > 4. Re: It's not our fault (Micha Berger) > > 5. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Akiva Miller) > > 6. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Micha Berger) > > 7. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Zev Sero) > > 8. Re: Davening at home on Yamim Noraim (Akiva Miller) > > 9. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Rich, Joel) > > 10. Re: conservatism in davening (Akiva Miller) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:53:18 -0400 > > From: Zvi Lampel > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , > > Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d > > Message-ID: > > < > CAPxEyabfrsb8kDLQzd7BTYpcZcQqOcyaDrjdZbyW8pD-K46QbA at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > > > > > > > > From: Akiva Miller > > > > > > In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today > > > to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) > > > > > > Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > > > > > This may happen elsewhere too, > > > > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher > > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers > > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > > G-d of Avraham, etc. Therefore, the layman refers to the G-d of the Kohane, > > whose biblical role is to teach of Hashem and His Torah and therefore > > conceptualized Hashem more accurately. > > > > (I would have to concede that at first sight this does not work in > > cases where the person bringing the Bikkurim is actually greater than the > > Kohane. One can answer that it's a matter of *lo plug, *using a fixed > > formula for everyone at all times, following the normal situation. Or I > > would modify my explanation to say that the Kohane may not necessarily have > > a higher conceptualization but, through his avodah, a unique one not shared > > by others, which is relevant to the Bikkurim bringer in his role as such.) > > > > but this case stands out because the form > > > changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out > to > > > Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the > contrast?... > > > > > > > I think the above explanation works to explain this. In fact, note that the > > farmer is referring to the G-d of our "ancestors," meaning G-d as > > understood by the avos. > > > > Zvi Lampel > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200901/89f8687e/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:29:01 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller , Zvi Lampel > > > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d > > Message-ID: <20200901192901.GA18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:53:18AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > > >> Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > > > > > This may happen elsewhere too, > > > > > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are > higher > > > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and > refers > > > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > > > G-d of Avraham, etc... > > > > I would have written something very similar, if RAM's email weren't still > > flagged "to do" in my email box when RZL's came in. > > > > However, I wouldn't have used the word "hasagah". I would have talked about > > the need to list "E-lokei Avraham", "E-lokai Yitzchaq" and "E-lokai Yaaqov" > > separately. > > > > To me, it speaks to the idea that the avos each had distinct relationships > > with the Borei. The "G-d of Avraham" was a different relationship than > > the G-d Yitzchaq "had" (kevayakhol). > > > > I don't know how RZL meant the word "hasagah", but to me it speaks to > knowing > > *about* something. As in greater people have greater understandings of what > > G-d is. > > > > I would instead has said that "E-lokekha" is about the G-d the kohein has > > time to relate to more constantly than the farmer does. > > > > And it might also make the Vidui a statement about the farmer's > > relationship with G-d. Rather than who has more relationship, but about > > kidn of relationship. > > > > After all, the kohein may be learning, teaching and doing avodah all > > day, but the farmer teams up with G-d and relies on G-d to produce his > > crop. That's the point of the vidui -- that the G-d of Yetzias Mitzrayim > > gets credit for more day-to-day things my success. Something a kohein > > may only get more vicariously. > > > > So, he's saying to the kohein, "G-d is not only how you relate to Him > > from your ivory tower -- 'Your G-d', realize He also is intimately > > involved in my life and everyday life." > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger If you're going through hell > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. > > Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > PS: Interesting quote my signature generator chose from the perspective > > of being this close to the end of 5780. (Although we must remember, we > > are likely the first generation for whom life is normally so wonderful, > > this year qualified as a notably "bad" one.) > > > > -- > > Micha Berger If you're going through hell > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. > > Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:54:36 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: avodah at aishdas.org, Ken Bloom > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? > > Message-ID: <20200901225436.GC18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:30:40PM -0400, Ken Bloom wrote: > > > Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what > one > > > should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in > > > finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. > > > > I'll give you "or elsewhere". Here's what I do. > > > > 1- > > > > During the year, I try to keep a cheshbon hanefesh. Laziness and momentum > > being what it is, that means that I usually have a journal of the decisions > > and reactions of a few 1 to 2 month stretches during the year. > > > > So, something I do early in Elul is review those, see patterns, what > > changed during the gaps... And trying to compensate changes because I > > was just focused on different things in different parts of the year. > > I then try to mentally fill in the gaps, as I can. And then I make a > > list of those issues in my reactions, decisions and actions that seem > > to have recurred a lot. It's often not the issues I was thinking I was > > failing at before I looked through notes. > > > > For that matter, even if you "just" keep a diary of your responses to the > > week -- not what happened to you, but how you responded to it -- from now > > to RH would give more insight to what habits and middos might really need > > the most attention. > > > > And to make that list, I try for a list of 2 to 4 items that both need the > > most attention and yet balanced with things I can actually tackle. For > > example, I have a long-running battle with ka'as. But it may not be > > the chink in the armor most ready to move. I might want to work on my > > frustration threshold, noting that my temper is very often the sum of > > frustration plus having someone I can pin blame on. > > > > And the plan has to be incremental. Not "starting YK I never will..." > > or "will always", but "starting YK I will take the first step to... > > which is..." > > > > For exmple, not expressing frustration in a given set of situations. > > Or maybe right after work for the first hour I'm home. Or whatever. > > > > 2- > > > > So much for correcting past mistakes. My other step is something > > Bank of America mislabeled Hoshin Planning that I adapted for life. > > > > https://www.aishdas.org/asp/hoshin-plan > > > > 2a- Find a Mission Statement > > > > At this point, I have a mission statement I aspire to live by. > > > > The first year, I didn't. I picked a quote from a sefer that at the time > > (and still) really moved me. Look for something from a seifer (including > > the siddur) that sums up life's mission for you. Is it about deveiqus? > > And if about deveiqus -- what does that mean to you? Knowledge (as per > > the Rambam)? Experiencing the Divine? Having a relationship with Hashem? > > Partnering with Him in His Work -- and what is His Work? Or maybe you see > > it in terms of sheleimus or temimus. But then, what is a person supposed > > to be, that you can talk about being more perfect at being one? Is it > > emulating Hashem? Or bein adam lachaveiro? Or maybe you're on another > > page altogether -- you see the Torah's mission for your life in terms > > of Jewish Nationhood, or humanity. > > > > And I realize many of those will yield different phrasing of nearly the > same > > answer. But only nearly the same. There could be situations where > connotations > > matter and have a nafqa mina lemaaseh. But in any case, it has to be moving > > and inspiring based on the way HQBH made you. > > > > In short -- a sentence or two about how you see what the Torah is telling > > you to be at this point in your life. > > > > After the first year, you tweak it and revise it as you change. > > > > 2b- Drilling down > > > > A Mission Statement is pointless if it doesn't have a way to influence > > action. > > > > In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for the > > firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could help > > reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division. His > > group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc... The idea is that > > there is an individual programmer like myself can be shown how my program > > fits in the team's goal, the group's goal and so on up to the firm's goal > > as written up in the Mission Statement. > > > > Similarly life's Mission Statement. We can divide it and subdivide it > > into managable lists. Maybe three bullet items as top-level goals to > > make the mission statament happen. And 2-4 each for each of those > > goals to make subgoals and so on. > > > > The idea is to get to the point that when you decide to go to the kitchen > > to get a cup of coffee, you have a way to relate that decision to the > > approach to living al pi haTorah that you framed for yourself. > > > > Let me give an example, taken from the above blog page. > > > > Since I wrote a book based on R Shimon's haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher, > > the quote would be no surprise. For that matter, ch. 2 is titled > > "Mission Statement" and is a collection of thoughts about the > > openining sentence of the haqdamah. See the first paragraph of > > the copy in Widen Your Tent sec 1.1, pg 45 of the book or pg 4 of > > https://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf#page=4 > > > > So, my orignal mission statement translates to (it is important to > > be in first person singular): > > [My] greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals > > and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator > > (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according > > to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the > > creations. So too His Will is that [I] walk in His ways. > > > > Now I can divide that into three subgoals: > > - Having a connection to G-d > > - Internalizing His Will > > - Being a conduit of Hashem's Good into the lives of others. > > > > Internalizing His will, for example, was first subdivided into > > - Daily learning (which is what drives projects like AhS Yomi) > > - Daily Mussar work (like what I'm describing in this post), and > > - Regular in-depth learning -- chavrusos, shiurim, etc... > > > > Notice at this point I can start filling in things I can do this year. > > What learning? Which shiurim? As in part 1 -- which middos and what are > > the first months' exercises to chip away at them. (And buying a pretty > > new notebook. Somehow I do best at cheshbon hanefesh when I have a > > kewl new toy to do it with.) > > > > Hopefully, by month end when this "Spiritual Hoshin Plan" is done, I > > can pause in the middle of the workday and be able to say for myself > > that I'm putting up with this irate trader on the phone (I work for a > > Hedge Fund) so that I can pay for tuition (goal 3.2.4.2.5 or some-such), > > I can develop my personal creativity (as per 1.2... as being in the > > image of the Creator is something I view as a Mussar goal), etc.. And > > thereby give sanctity to an otherwise mundane (and stressfull) activity. > > > > And then every year things shift. Both in how I look at the world and in > > what are the pressing issues requiring more attention. Where parenting > > sits in the hierarchy was very different when I started than now that my > > youngest is a teenager. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable > treasure. > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp It preserves health, promotes convalescence, > > Author: Widen Your Tent and helps us cope with adversity. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of > Mishlei" > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:46:48 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] It's not our fault > > Message-ID: <20200901194648.GB18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:45:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > > > I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In > > > the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: > > > > >> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly > > >> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any > > >> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have > > >> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or > > >> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected > > >> on a dangerous road)." > > > > > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > > > > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have > passed > > > through unnoticed? > > > > Does it say that unnoticed strangers are included? > > > > The gemara (Sotah 46b) says (original at > https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.9 ): > > Would it cross our minds that BD were murderers? > > > > Rather [they are saying]: He did not come to us and we dismissed him > > without food. We didn't see him and leave him without accompaniment. > > > > My translation matches the TMS's, minus their parenthetic comments. (Which > > I will now assume is the author's insertions, rather than part of the > > medrash.) > > > > The two phrases "lo ba leyadeinu" and "vera'inhu" seem to me to mean > > the BD are saying that the didn't neglect anyone they knew of. That not > > knowing the person was in town would be one of the reasons they wouldn't > > be guilty. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp better if possible, and of changing himself > for > > Author: Widen Your Tent the better if necessary. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Victor Frankl, Man's search for > Meaning > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:31 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: > > KNCNNA at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on > > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? > > > > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day away. I > > think it is assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know that it won't > > be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. In contrast, > > if I request Monday delivery, that would be okay, even though I know that > > they'll be working for me on Shabbos, because it was their choice to work > > on Saturday rather than Sunday. > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/5837fd1d/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:11:20 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: <20200902141120.GA27483 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:00:31AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus > on > > > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? > > > > Well, if there isn't a contracted delivery date of Shabbos, then it's > > their choice whether to do melakhah for you on Shabbos, Friday or Sunday. > > The package could sit around in a transfer facility for 25 hours while > > they deal with more urgent packages if it's not the delivery date. The > > choice is theirs. > > > > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > > > > I guess in the case of (eg) 3 day delivery, since it wouldn't violate the > > contract to get it there in 2, someone might argue that you aren't > > asking them to do the delivery on Shabbos. But I don't know if mutar > > alternatives matter even when they're implausible. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his > fellow > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew > worries > > Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's > stomach. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:46:49 -0400 > > From: Zev Sero > > To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: <66cf413b-bbfa-c02e-885f-8a8bb7e152ce at sero.name> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > > On 2/9/20 8:00 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day > > > away. I think it is?assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know > > > that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during > Shabbos. > > > > I agree, *if* you know where it's coming from, and that it's not > > bich'dei sheyei'asu without working on Shabbos. But in the general case > > you don't know that, and I don't see why you have to worry about it just > > on spec. > > > > -- > > Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer > > zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:45:46 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim > > Message-ID: > > < > CABiM0c+1patT7b5FcLCxbn8wuZsCXzmoGyC846J6cQxP-9JJjQ at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > > > > > Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said that it is better to daven a > > > little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that > > > selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more than 15 > > > minutes, IIRC. > > > > It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing > > to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better > > than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time > > that's been taken from them. > > > > Much more important is the speed at which it is said. If the length of time > > would remain constant, but pages were skipped so that the rest could be > > said carefully and attentively, THAT'S what Chazal meant by "better to > > daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without." > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/455f462f/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 9 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:49:48 +0000 > > From: "Rich, Joel" > > To: 'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group' > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: > > < > CY4PR02MB25993558995FE1F789868116BF2F0 at CY4PR02MB2599.namprd02.prod.outlook.com > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > > ------------------------------- > > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's > Saturday delivery and you say nothing? > > KVCT > > 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 10 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:08:38 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] conservatism in davening > > Message-ID: > > < > CABiM0cJ4esqYBS9zWh5bP1UnGZYs67zrTwZ+HeYOcVVLWc9ULw at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > In the thread "Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im", R' Arie Folger wrote: > > > > > By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper > > > recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused > > > wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata > > > Hu E-loheinu. > > > > > > In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to > > > read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next > > > line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the > > > opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, > > > so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the > > > proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. > > > > I can see where some people might read the above, and feel that Rabbi > > Folger is being subjective and arbitrary in his choices of "proper" and > > "wrong". I had my brain all psyched up to spend the next hour or so writing > > a post to explain how he is objectively correct, and then I remembered that > > we covered this ground four years ago. > > > > Anyone who wants to learn more about how the recitation of these piyutim > > got messed up is strongly invited to review the thread "conservatism in > > davening" at > > > https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CONSERVATISM%20IN%20DAVENING > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/fc503c3c/attachment.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Avodah mailing list > > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah > > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 38, Issue 72 > > ************************************** > > -- ----------------------------- Moshe Zeldman Israel: (+972) 54 256 2888 US/Canada: 647 580 8965 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 18:34:46 2020 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:34:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d Message-ID: In Avodah V38n72, RZL noted: > This may happen elsewhere too < The first example which came into my mind when I saw RAMiller's message was a phrase in the P'Zachor *haftara* -- see I Sam 15:15. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 3 09:09:03 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 12:09:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <15e6bfd6-3399-dbb5-a721-6671f0b31da4@sero.name> On 2/9/20 4:49 pm, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > ------------------------------- > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's Saturday delivery and you say nothing? That should be fine. It's their decision, not yours. You told them you don't mind if they deliver it on Sunday. It's the same as dropping something off at the cleaners right before Shabbos and telling them you want it by 6 AM on Sunday. Since they could work on it all night Motzei Shabbos, you're fine, even though you know they will choose not to. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 18:13:02 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 21:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul Message-ID: . R' Moshe Zeldman asked: > If one should not say "starting YK I will never...", then how > does that fit with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the > vidui is saying "and I will never do X again"? > It sounds difficult to read into the Rambam that he means "I'm > still going to be doing X but I have a plan to eventually stop" Yes, the Rambam does say that at the beginning of Perek 1. But Perek 2 is all about less-than-ideal sorts of teshuva. I concede that I didn't notice the Rambam explicitly mentioning this weaning as a legitimate less-than-ideal form of teshuva. But still, it is hard for me to imagine that he would invalidate someone who said, "I did it, and I should not have done it, and I feel sorry that I did it, and in the future I will do it less than I used to." And even if the Rambam *would* say that such a person has *not* done teshuva, remember the context in which this idea was suggested: a person who has repeatedly found this particular aveira unusually difficult to conquer. Imagine further, that this person succeeds in a slow elimination of this aveira, and after many years - decades perhaps - he has finally conquered it. Such a person would certainly be no less of a Baal Teshuva than the one who the Rambam described in the middle section of halacha 2:1: "Even if he didn't do teshuva until his elderly days, and when it was impossible for his to do what he used to do, even though it's not an excellent teshuva, it still helps him, and he is a Baal Teshuva." Please note that this person described by the Rambam did not even begin regretting his sins until he was too old to do them. That's NOT the case we're discussing. We're discussing someone who still has to battle the yetzer hara. I can't help but wonder if this person, who executed a long, slow, but ultimately successful plan, might get the mitzva of Teshuva retroactively, to the beginning of that plan, maybe even according to the Rambam. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 10:43:29 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:43:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200904174329.GB3095@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:33:32AM +0300, Moshe Zeldman via Avodah wrote: > If one should not say "starting YK I will never...", then how does that fit > with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the vidui is saying "and I > will never do X again"? I'm going to shift topics a little from what the Rambam says should be done to what experience (and 20th cent Mussar sefarim) has shown does work. Lots of diets I promised myself I would start right after the chagim never happened. So, I don't think there is much commitment in "starting YK I will never..." Maybe we should be following the incremental approach... Promising now to take steps that by Yom Kippur I would be up to not doing X again, and by Chanukah not doing X-1, and by Pesach, X-2, and by next YK... Again, not claiming you can read that into the Rambam. But it does fit the Rambam's requirements for vidui while still having more chance of success than expecitng to be able to permanently change habits and character on a dime. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. http://www.aishdas.org/asp The purpose of life Author: Widen Your Tent is to give it away. -- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -- Pablo Picasso From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 10:58:49 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:58:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200904175849.GC3095@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:45:46PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing > to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better > than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time > that's been taken from them. Speaking specifically of "echad hamarbeh. ve'echad hamam'it..." and not trying to fit more services into the same number of rooms in the same morning or other pandemic issues... The idea is usually invoked for those of us who abbreviate Pesuqei deZimra in order to say fewer peraqim of Tehillim in the same time the minyan is saying more of them. Not to save time, but to spend more thought and similar time on fewer actions (in this case, speech). BUT... The past century has seen a HUGE shrinkage (sorry for the oxymoron) in attention spans. So, the more likely alternative of 15 minutes of rushed mumbeling may be better than an hour of mumbling while one's mind wanders. For many people, even on Yamim Noraim. May even have a net minus in the minimal kavanah of a rushed mumble. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] http://www.aishdas.org/asp isn't complete with being careful in the laws Author: Widen Your Tent of Passover. One must also be very careful in - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:48:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 14:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20200904184852.GD3095@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:49:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >> But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after >> hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's > Saturday delivery and you say nothing? Can it depend on who makes the decision? What if I ask one set of people to deliver my package, but another set of people make it impossible for them to get into the warehouse / vehicle on Sunday? And if I could guess as much that even if they wanted to deliver on Sunday it's not really in their power to do so? :-)BBii! -Micha From seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:25 2020 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2020 10:31:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avos - Shepherds Message-ID: The Avos ? Forefathers - (and Moshe Rabbeinu and Dovid HaMelech and others) were shepherds. Did they eat sheep? The few times when eating from the flock is mentioned, it seems to be goats (eg, Rivka feeding Yitzchak). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Sep 6 13:24:42 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:24:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Use a Public Grill? Message-ID: >From https://www.kosher.com/lifestyle/can-one-use-a-public-grill-1259 [https://www.kosher.com/resized/open_graph/s/h/shutterstock_442567648_banner.jpg] Can One Use a Public Grill? | Lifestyle | Kosher.com Shailah of the Week by Rabbi Zvi Nussbaum Rabbinic Coordinator, Kosher Hotline Administrator for the Orthodox Union Since a campground grill has been used to cook non-kosher foods (non-kosher meats and fish...), it may not be used unless it is properly kashered. The only way to kasher a gr... www.kosher.com Since a campground grill has been used to cook non-kosher foods (non-kosher meats and fish...), it may not be used unless it is properly kashered. The only way to kasher a grill top is with libun gamur (heating until the entire surface of the grill top rack becomes red hot). This can be accomplished by submerging the surface of the grill into burning charcoal. Even if the grill was used within the past 24 hours to cook non-kosher, and even if the grill had not been cleaned, it may still be kashered in this manner, since the intense heat will burn up all non-kosher residue and taste. There is no need to tovel the grill (immerse the grill in a mikvah), since it does not belong to you. It is owned by the park. Instead of kashering the grill, an easier option is to bring along your own grill top and a couple of bricks. If the non-kosher grill can be lifted out of the way, the kosher grill may be put in its place, balanced on the bricks. If you purchase a new grill top, it must be toveled before it is used. A third option is to double wrap your food with two layers of aluminum foil. Once properly wrapped, they may be placed directly on the non-kosher grill. In this case, it is better to clean the grill top first, or let the coals burn off the grease, before placing the double-wrapped food on top. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Sep 6 13:49:28 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:49:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pas Yisroel Message-ID: See https://www.crcweb.org/Pas%20Yisroel%20article%20.pdf Pas Yisroel during Aseres Y?mei Teshuvah Pas Yisroel By: Rabbi Dovid Cohen Administrative Rabbinic Coordinator, cRc Background In the times of the Mishnah, and possible even earlier, Chazal www.crcweb.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Sep 7 04:02:28 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:02:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] 10PM Slichot Message-ID: Anyone know why R' Moshe in O"C 2:105 didn't suggest pre-shacharit slichot rather than 10Pm slichot as a stand in for chatzot (midnight) slichot on the first night of slichot when there was a clear and present danger? Kvct 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 michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 11:26:57 2020 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:26:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another example, seen via this week's ShMOT: Deu 31 :26. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolberg at yebo.co.za Mon Sep 7 03:41:23 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 12:41:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 Message-ID: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> "And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. And so paskened the Geonei Olam for about [the last] eighty years. And this is the essential halocha." I have several questions about this. 1. Surely the use of Yiddish translations was very common and accepted? 2. Is this a response to the Reform use of German translations? 3. While the translation of the Shema might be problematic, translation of shemoneh esrei and brochas is surely not the same issue? From zev at sero.name Tue Sep 8 08:01:13 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 11:01:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10PM Slichot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0c0a2053-cf70-2689-d048-d3d3a7c9eab4@sero.name> On 7/9/20 7:02 am, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Anyone know why R? Moshe in O?C 2:105 didn?t suggest pre-shacharit > slichot rather than 10Pm slichot as a stand in for chatzot (midnight) > slichot on the first night of slichot when there was a clear and present > danger? The teshuva isn't about the first night, it's about all the days of selichos, and the situation is that it's impossible to do it either at midnight *or* before dawn. He takes it for granted that selichos must be said at night, Kumi Roni Valayla, and at an Eis Ratzon, which means any time between midnight and dawn, and says the minhag to do it at the end of the night, before dawn, is for convenience. So he reluctantly allows it after the first third of the night, with the proviso that it must be publicised that this is a hora'as sha'ah. Why doesn't he even consider doing it in the morning after daylight? I can think of two possibilities: Perhaps because selichos must be at night; or perhaps because people have to go to work and can't fit selichos in at their normal time for shacharis, and it's already posited in the question that for some reason they can't start earlier. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781 zev at sero.name "May this year and its curses end May a new year and its blessings begin" From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 11:43:48 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 14:43:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dates from Ancient Genes and Koseves Message-ID: <20200908184348.GA9440@aishdas.org> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/07/world/middleeast/israel-judean-dates-agriculture.html KETURA, Israel The plump, golden-brown dates hanging in a bunch just above the sandy soil were finally ready to pick. They had been slowly ripening in the desert heat for months. But the young tree on which they grew had a much more ancient history sprouting from a 2,000-year-old seed retrieved from an archaeological site in the Judean wilderness. Quick, can someone get the volume of these things before Yom Kippur? Kidding aside.... Do people think that the shiur of a kekoseves should be re-assessed, if necessary, based on this newly available data? RYBS, and his version of R Chaim's argument against Radziner tekheiles (or his argument against assuming orez = rice) would imply we don't. Halakhah can only be founded upon mesorah, not scientific data. My summary of that section of Nefesh haRav is at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n073.shtml#12 Anyone want to provide meqoros for other opinions? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... http://www.aishdas.org/asp ... but you're the pilot. Author: Widen Your Tent - R' Zelig Pliskin - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Sep 8 17:48:57 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 00:48:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] directed donations Message-ID: Question someone I know got concerning a contribution: Do you want your donation to the shul to be ?????? ???? ??? Response: I?d go with anonymous and pray that hkbh directs his accountant to allocate it to where it?s most needed. As a matter fact maybe that should be the inscription Thoughts? Kvct 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 llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 9 05:50:41 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 12:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 565:5) writes that the ?Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim? (thirteen attributes of mercy, Shemos 34:6-7) may not be recited unless there is a minyan. When these pesukim are recited in the context of prayer, they have the elevated status of a ?davar she?bikedusha,? like Kaddish or Kedusha, that may only be said in the presence of a minyan. The Mishnah Berurah (581:4) writes that Selichos that mention the Yud Gimmel Middos may be said, provided that those lines are skipped. If one prefers to say the Yud Gimmel Middos, he may do so if he recites them with the trop (cantillation) used for krias haTorah, as that indicates that it is not being recited as a tefillah (M?B 565:12). Mishnah Berurah also adds that any Selichos that are written in Aramaic should be skipped. The basis for this is the Gemara (Sotah 33a), in which Rebbi Yochanan states that angels do not deliver prayers that were recited in Aramaic, but when praying with a minyan one does not need the assistance of angels. Hashem?s presence is in the midst of the minyan and there is no need for angelic intervention. The Mishnah Berurah concludes, if there is no minyan at the beginning of Selichos, Kaddish is not said after Ashrei. Instead, the group should begin reciting Selichos. When the tenth man arrives, the congregation should recite three pesukim together, recite Kaddish and then continue from where they left off. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Sep 10 05:44:42 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:44:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When to Say Se;lichos Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. What is preferable? To wake up early and recite Selichos before dawn (a.k.a. alos hashachar, which is 72 minutes before sunrise), or to stay up late and recite Selichos after chatzos (midnight)? What about saying selichos after alos or after neitz hachama (sunrise)? A. Rav Yitzchak Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Yoma 22a) writes that the preferred time to recite Selichos is before dawn. This can be inferred from the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 3:4) who writes that it is customay to awake at night and recite Selichos until the morning. In addition, Mishnah Berurah (581:1) writes that the end of the night is an eis rotzon (a propitious time when G-d is receptive to prayer), implying that the early mornoing is the most appropriate time for Selichos. Finally, the She?arim Metzuyanim B?Halacah (Yoma 22a) notes that Selichos recited in the early morning is more effective, since it is recited through greater sacrifice; it is more difficult to wake up early than to stay up late. May Selichos be rected after sunrise? Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Divrei Si?ach, vol. 134) holds that it is preferable to recite Selichos after Chatzos than to recite Selichos later in the day after sunrise. On the otherhand, Rav Elyashav and Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach take an oposite opinion and write that it is better to recite Selichos in the daytime (even after sunrise) than to say it after chatzos (quoted in MB Dirshu MB, 581:1). Similiary, the Aruch Hashulchan writes that it has been customary to say selichos in the morning after sunrise for many generations. On the other hand, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt?l (Igros Moshe OC, 2:105) writes that kabalistically, the period after chatzos is as much an eis ratzon as early dawn, and for this reason, for many generations, it has been customary to recite Selichos at night after chatzos. This is also the opinion of the Minchas Elazar (the previous Munkatcher Rebbi), as recorded in Divrei Torah (141:76). Even those who recomend saying selichos in early morning before sunrise agree that on the first night of Selichos, on Motzei Shabbos, it is preferable to recite Selichos after Chatzos. This is because we wish to combine the merit of Shabbos together with the first Selichos. Therefore, we begin Selichos after Chatzos, and do not wait for the early morning (Chashukei Chemed, ibid.). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 15:12:12 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:12:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 In-Reply-To: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> References: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> Message-ID: <20200910221212.GB12180@aishdas.org> Sidenote: This se'if was recently studied by Arukh haShulchan Yomi. If you want to join us learning AhS Yomi, see the tools -- calendar, text, RYGB's YouTube playlist -- at http://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi ! AhS Yomi covers OC and the applicable portions of YD. (From egg spots to aveilus.) On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:41:23PM +0200, wolberg via Avodah wrote: >> And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the Shema and >> Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. >> And so paskened the Geonei Olam for about [the last] eighty years. And >> this is the essential halocha." ... > 1. Surely the use of Yiddish translations was very common and accepted? For women, yes. In fact, there is a script called Vaibrteitch because translations were in general considered for women. ("Women's Translation". "Teitch" evolved from the language name "Deutch".) Vaibrteitch is different than Rashi script. See examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaybertaytsh > 2. Is this a response to the Reform use of German translations? Likely. That bit about how they used to know Hebrew better is suspiciously post-facto sounding. Maybe when translating to another Semitic language, or to Greek using a millenia old tradition of Hebrew to Greek equivalences, we could have done better than we can to English. However, 600 years ago, translating to German, French or Spanish... No matter how well you know Hebrew, there is simply no close parallel to translate words to. A personal favorite when teaching Mussar is "yir'ah". Yir'ah is a range from awe to fear. Maybe the closest is "awareness of the magnitude of what you're facing" -- whether with admiration (awe) or thinking about risk (fear) or in another way. But because we are thinking "awe or fear" instead of a single concept, we cannot think about the middah of yir'as Shamayim in a fully authentic way. It's not two thing with an "or", or with a second thought about how they're related. It's a single territory that should be part of our gut's language about how we're feeling at a given point in time. In any case, it is true that real translation is impossible. I would faster *guess* that a machloqes about how close a translation may be got closed because the response to Reform forced our hand to choose one shitah over the other. > 3. While the translation of the Shema might be problematic, translation > of shemoneh esrei and brochas is surely not the same issue? Well, we cannot translation "Barukh Atah Hashem", at least not "barukh" or "Hashem" in any precise way. So, maybe not. I am not sure people really know what they mean when they say "blessed". But what is Barukh? - Source of increase - Maximally increased - May You -- in the form of the expression of Your Will in this world -- be incresed - An intentional ambiguity of all of the above? And sheim havayah pronounced as Adnus... - The Atemporal - The All-Compassionate - The Transcendent - The L-rd of All Etc... I would faster think the baqashos would be okay more than berakhos in general. Or maybe the body of the berakhah until the chasimah. As long as the translation is close enough so that it opens and wraps up with me'ein hachasimah. But lemaaseh, the AhS says that's not what "we hold". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. http://www.aishdas.org/asp - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:50:27 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Torah Musings] Why Did the Holocaust Happen Message-ID: <20200911175027.GA23887@aishdas.org> A survey by R Gil Student. https://www.torahmusings.com/2020/09/why-did-the-holocaust-happen/ (And a couple of the comments on his post.) :-)BBii! -Micha Torah Musing Why Did the Holocaust Happen? Posted by: Gil Student Posts Sep 7, 2020 As I reviewed the weekly Torah reading for this past Shabbos, which includes the tochekhah (Deut. 28), I was taken back to my teenage years, reading it one Saturday or Sunday afternoon and seeing Jewish history in it. To a non-religious Jewish teenager in the 1980's who grew up among survivors, the question of God in the Holocaust was not a faith issue that could be ignored. Reading the biblical text with minimal commentary (I think I used S.L. Gordon's secular commentary), I saw a prophecy that sin would lead to the kind of inhuman devastation seen in the Holocaust, a prediction that was fulfilled thousands of years later. To me, the Holocaust was not an impediment to faith but a convincing proof of Judaism's truth claims. Not everyone sees it that way. Many are offended by the very claim that the Holocaust was a divine punishment, although often due to objections that miss important discussions in traditional Jewish literature which we will mention briefly below. The issues are so sensitive, and during the 1970's and 1980's in particular the denominational conflicts were so strong, that unnecessarily forceful rhetoric turned an issue of faith into a weapon. In my opinion, a legitimate theological view has been dismissed due to heightened sensitivities and denominational politics. I. Five Approaches to the Holocaust Modern Orthodoxy has developed two main theologies of the Holocaust: 1) Hester Panim - God hid His face, turned away, and let mankind unleash wanton violence. R. Norman Lamm takes this approach in his [51]"The Face of God: Thoughts of the Holocaust". It is important to note that God hides His face (Deut. 31:17) due to Jewish sins (ibid., 16). (Some claim that brief mentions of hester panim by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik in his Kol Dodi Dofek constitute his adoption of this approach, but see R. Reuven Ziegler, Majesty and Humility, p. 277 n. 4, where he dismisses this interpretation.) 2) Free Will - God allows mankind the free will to sin, which includes the ability to murder and torture others. R. Eliezer Berkovits advocates this approach in his Faith After the Holocaust. The alternative approaches generally discussed are: 3) Anti-Zionism - The Satmar Rebbe's argument that Zionism led to the Holocaust, in his [52]Al Ha-Ge'ulah Ve-Al Ha-Temurah. 4) Zionism - The Religious Zionist argument that the Holocaust paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel. This view is attributed to R. Zvi Yehudah Kook (see Aviezer Ravitzky, Messianism, Zionism and Jewish Religious Radicalism, pp. 126-128). 5) Secularization - R. Avigdor Miller popularized the view that the assimilation and secularization of Jews in the 150 years prior to the Holocaust resulted in this punishment. R. Norman Lamm quotes this from R. Miller's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 278-279) and you can find quotes on the subject by searching [53]TorasAvigdor.org for the word "Holocaust". (A reader informed me that R. Miller has a book on the subject was posthumously published -- [54]A Divine Madness: Rabbi Avigdor Miller's Defense of Hashem in the Matter of the Holocaust.) II. The Slabodka Holocaust Theology I would like to explore here the approach of a Holocaust victim, Rav Avraham Grodzinski, the mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva who perished in 1944. I will be blending in another important view of Rav Grodzinski, along with his son-in-law Rav Shlomo Wolbe's presentation of Rav Grodzinski's approach in Rav Wolbe's (anonymously published) book of outreach speeches given in the wake of the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars (originally published as Bein Sheshes Le-Asor, later republished as Olam Ha-Yedidus). Rav Grodzinski's approach is most similar to that of Rav Miller, which is not surprising since the latter studied in the Slabodka yeshiva. However, I am not sure that Rav Miller developed it in the same way as Rav Grodzinski and he certainly did not present it in the same sensitive way as Rav Wolbe. [55]Rav Avraham Grodzinski succeeded Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel ("The Alter") as mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva, when the latter moved to Israel and established a branch of the yeshiva in Chevron. Rav Grodzinski (a brother-in-law of Rav Ya'akov Kamenetsky) stayed in Europe to the end, suffering a martyr's death in the Kovno Ghetto in 1944. He sent his writings to his students in Israel, who together with [56]his surviving sons published them in 1963 as Toras Avraham, a brilliant book of profound Mussar thought presented in the style of Talmudic thinking. [57]Rav Shlomo Wolbe first published Bein Sheshes Le-Asor anonymously in 1975, although it is clearly in his style and was posthumously republished by the foundation to publish his writings. The book consists mainly of his outreach lectures throughout Israel, spurred by the renewed interest in Israel awakened by the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War. The chapter on the Holocaust, however, was prepared for a class at the Bais Ya'akov of Jerusalem (commonly known as BJJ). I assume that Rav Wolbe included this chapter because he believes that this issue is important to those seeking to grow in faith. Rav Wolbe begins with a story emphasizing the importance of finding meaning in your suffering. It is obvious, he says, that we must help others by alleviating their suffering in any way possible. However, faith teaches us that there is meaning in suffering, a lesson to be learned. Rav Wolbe continues that even when God hides His face from us, there are no accidents. Therefore we must examine our lives to see what God wants from us. This is true not just for individuals but for nations as a whole. Throughout, Rav Wolbe quotes mainly biblical verses to prove his points, although I can think of many Talmudic passages that would do likewise. The believer is strengthened from the fact that destruction and suffering do not occur by happenstance but rather come guided by divine providence after ample warning. The traditional Jewish texts of the Bible, Talmud and Midrash warn us of the horrific consequences of sin. Rav Wolbe highlights in particular the language of the Gemara (Kesubos 111a), while sidestepping the specific Talmudic context, of "If not, I (God) will abandon your flesh like the gazelles and like the hinds of the field." Due to sin, Jewish flesh will be hunted like animals. Nobody, Rav Wolbe continues, is allowed to decide for what reason the Holocaust happened to us unless he personally suffered himself. Only a victim can conduct this examination of the generation. As we will later see, Rav Grodzinski did not necessarily agree with this. Perhaps Rav Wolbe set this condition for rhetorical purposes. Regardless, with that introduction, Rav Wolbe then invokes Rav Grodzinski's Holocaust theology. III. Suffering and Sins The introduction to Toras Avraham (1978 second edition, p. 17) describes how Rav Grodzinski discussed at length with his students in the Kovno Ghetto the spiritual causes of the Holocaust. He listed twelve primary sins, or areas where we were lacking, and exhorted them to strengthen the Jewish people in these areas if they survived the war. Rav Grodzinski wrote all these talks down but the writings were lost in the war. [58]Rav Mordechai Zuckerman survived and recorded the twelve lackings from memory. They are: 1) Faith 2) Shabbos observance 3) Family purity 4) Kosher food 5) Charging interest 6) Torah education of children 7) Wasting time that could be used for Torah study 8) Loving your fellow Jew 9) Lovingkindness (chesed) 10) Making do with less (histapkus) 11) Trust in God 12) The land of Israel (I don't know what this means in this context). I do not know if Rav Grodzinski applied Talmudic statements to his contemporary events, such as "seven punishments come to the world due to seven sins" (Avos 5:8), or if he looked at specific types of suffering and found the "measure for measure" in them, or a combination of both methods or something else. Because his writings were lost, we lack insight into his specific methodology. Regardless, I appreciate his general approach, as described below, and recognize that he used it to reach specific conclusions, which I find worthy as areas to strengthen ourselves. Rav Wolbe adds to the above list the general secularization of the Jewish people that began with Emancipation and continued with the Jewish Enlightenment. This was accompanied by widespread abandonment of Jewish faith and practice. Historically, he claims, every period of "enlightenment" has ended with Jewish tragedy. The Holocaust continues that historical cycle. I believe that Rav Grodzinski's Holocaust theology is intimately connected with his theology of suffering. In a series of lectures in late 1936 and early 1937, Rav Grodzinski explored the unique value of suffering to the religious personality. It might be worthwhile noting that since childhood, Rav Grodzinski suffered great physical pain that he overcame through sheer force of personality. Rav Grodzinski begins by pointing out what we lost as a nation and as individuals by the cessation of prophecy (roughly) after the destruction of the First Temple. The prophets informed us of our sins, directed us to the proper behavior, guided us to spiritual recovery. When prophecy ceased, we lost that guidance but were not left without any religious compass. Suffering shows us where we must focus. God punishes us measure for measure. Therefore, we can look at our suffering, our punishment, as a guide for where we need to improve our behavior. To some degree, suffering is more effective than prophecy. "The removal of Achashverosh's ring (for the sealing of Haman's decree) was more effective than the forty-eight prophets and the seven prophetesses who prophesied on behalf of the Jewish people. They all were unable to bring the Jewish people to repentance, but the removal of Achashverosh's ring brought them to repentance" (Megillah 14a). Additionally, suffering empowers you to find your own path to redemption, without the need for a third party, a prophet. Suffering not only directs you to improve but encourages you, offers you the incentive of freedom from suffering. Rav Grodzinski adds (p. 54) that suffering guides not only the sinners but others, as well. When we see someone suffering and understand the sin that caused it, we learn a very persuasive lesson about what behavior we should avoid. This is true also about the educational value of nations making flawed decisions that seal their fate. The suffering of nations teaches us what national mistakes to avoid (cf. Zephaniah 3:6-7). In Rav Grodzinski's view, a wise and learned person, steeped in Talmud and Midrash, can examine the suffering of the Holocaust to identify its underlying spiritual causes and learn from them. After conducting a careful examination, Rav Grodzinski reached his conclusions (unfortunately, his thought process was recorded in writing but lost) and beseeched his students to work to fix these spiritual problems. IV. Common Objections 1) Rav Wolbe concludes with a common question: Why did righteous people suffer in the Holocaust? He quotes Rav Grodzinski as explaining that the more righteous someone is, the harsher he is judged. R. Akiva suffered from Roman torture and murder because, we are told, "this intention arose before" God (Menachos 29b). What is that intention? Rashi (Gen. 1:1) says, "At first God intended to create the world under the attribute of strict justice, but He realized that the world could not thus endure and therefore gave priority to mercy combined with justice." R. Akiva and the other righteous individuals are judged with the initial intent, pure justice. Even without Rav Wolbe's interpretation of this passage, we see elsewhere that the righteous are judged by a hairbreadth (Yevamos 121b), meaning that what for others constitutes a minor infraction for someone righteous is a big sin. Additionally, once God sends a punishment to a group (city, country, nation), that punishment applies to everyone whether righteous or wicked (Bava Kamma 60a). That is part of being a people -- our fates are connected. In fact, the Gemara (Shabbos 55a) says that when God punishes the Jewish people, He starts with the most righteous. 2) Were the people killed in the Holocaust guilty? - Even though no one can claim to be free from guilt, it is hard to imagine that anyone committed a sin so heinous as to deserve the horrors of the Holocaust. However, a sin committed by many is worse than a sin committed by an individual. Additionally, God is patient and allows time -- generations -- for the Jewish people to return before punishing us. When the punishment arrives, it is not just for that generation but for the previous generations as well (Ex. 20:5; Or Ha-Chaim, ad loc.). The generation of the Holocaust lived at the end of God's long wait for a return that never arrived. We do not stand in judgement of those who died or suffered in the Holocaust, nor do we say that they are more deserving than people before or after them. According to this understanding, they were individuals who lived at a time in history when the Jewish people was punished for its collective sins over many generations, for its long drift away from traditional Jewish observance. 3) Were the Nazis right to kill Jews? - This question is natural but odd. Natural because it emerges from the overall approach but odd because it has been discussed for centuries. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Teshuvah 6:5) asks why Pharaoh and the Egyptians were punished for enslaving the Jews when it was part of God's plan as told to Avraham (Gen. 15:13). Rambam answers that someone was destined to enslave the Jews but the Egyptians were guilty for being the ones to do it and therefore suffered ten plagues and drowning at the sea (see also Ramban, Gen. 15:14; I discuss it [59]here). May the Nazis suffer a hundred times ten plagues for their part in the Holocaust. None of this detracts from God's role in punishing the Jewish people through the guilty Egyptian hands. 4) What value is there in looking for other people's sins? - As discussed above, Rav Grodzinski sees value in learning what to fix. If we do not learn the spiritual lessons of history, we are condemned to repeat them. Additionally, Ramban (Sha'ar Ha-Gemul in Kisvei Ha-Ramban, vol. 2 p. 281; I discuss it [60]here) offers four reasons to engage in theodicy, even if ultimately you cannot fully understand God's ways. First, we benefit from gaining a better understanding of God's ways. More wisdom is good. Metaphysical knowledge, understanding God's actions, is always positive. Second, studying the ways in which God rewards and punishes people strengthens our belief. Our continuous exploration of God's ways reinforces within us His existence and His providence. Our greater understanding affords us confidence that explanations exist to even what we do not understand. Additionally, concludes Ramban, the obligations to fear and love God include a requirement to accept His judgment, to explain and justify God's decisions. This is a mitzvah of tziduk ha-din. 4) Is it sacrilegious to try to understand God's justice? - No, it is a mitzvah, as per the previous point. It also is not insulting to speak of punishment due to sins. When the Shakh writes about the Chmelnitzki massacres, he refers to what happened to us "due to our sins." When the Ra'avan writes about the First Crusade ([61]Kuntres Gezeiras Tatn"u), he specifically invokes the tokhecha, saying that they experienced all of the biblical curses. This is a strain of, if not the dominant strain in, traditional Judaism. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Ta'aniyos 1:3) calls it cruelty to fail to look for the sins that led to divine punishment. 5) Can anyone know God's reasons absent prophecy? - Rav Yitzchak Hutner ("Holocaust" -- A Study of the Term, and the Epoch it is Meant to Describe" in [62]Jewish Observer, October 1977, p. 9) writes: "One would have to be a navi or Tanna (a prophet or Talmudic sage) to claim knowledge of the specific reasons for what befell us; anyone on a lesser plane claiming to do so tramples in vain upon the bodies of the kedoshim who died Al Kiddush Hashem [as holy martyrs] and misuses the power to interpret and understand Jewish history." On the other hand, this same Rav Hutner gave an approbation to Rav Wolbe's book quoted above. Furthermore, it seems that Rav Grodzinski, himself a holy martyr, felt his method of analyzing suffering serves the function of prophecy in today's age. 6) Why does this usually ring so hollow? - When the Holocaust is discussed without sensitivity and empathy, the proposed explanations sound shallow and offensive. In my opinion, that is why Rav Wolbe began with a long introduction and invoked the conclusions of a Holocaust victim, Rav Grodzinski. Furthermore, many of the people offering explanations today either are, or sound like or are portrayed by the media as being, self-righteous fools. It is hard to take seriously someone whose analysis is shallow and only validates his regular message. If your answer to everything is female immodesty, you lack credibility to offer a thoughtful and nuanced answer. Rav Grodzinski does not face this challenge but some people may unfairly associate him with others who suffer that problem. There may be other reasons that this approach often rings hollow but these should suffice for our purposes. Personally, I benefited from this tokhecha approach which I intuited as a non-religious teenager. I am not certain which sins caused the Holocaust but I am open to honest, sensitive speculation as a way of learning from history, which I believe is that in which Rav Grodzinski and Rav Wolbe engaged. If this approach had been deemed theologically unacceptable, despite its impeccable pedigree, I don't know if I would be religious today. In my opinion, it is a shame to remove this approach from our theological toolbox due to politics and rhetoric from decades ago. ... 3 comments 1. Kovner Sep 8, 20 at 6:44 am You missed out on one more important approach. Read the classic introduction to Zichron Kodosh written by the author of Nesivos Sholom - RSN Barzovsky zt"l. The sefer was published once, and never reprinted. Also, the Toras Avrohom was published by a son - not sons - of RAG. Only one son did not perish. ... 3. Kovner Sep 9, 20 at 7:05 pm I'm not skilled to do so accurately and faithfully. Never the less, I'll venture to say that the central point is that it's all part of Hashem's Grand Plan of human history, and is beyond our comprehension. And therefore the most appropriate response is "Vayidom Aharon"... ... Copyright 2020 All rights reserved References 51. https://merrimackvalleyhavurah.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/the-face-of-god-thoughts-on-the-holocaust/ 52. http://www.mysatmar.com/docs/shite_hakdoshe/ 53. https://torasavigdor.org/ 54. https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Madness-Avigdor-Millers-Holocaust/dp/B00EF68V9C 55. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Grodzinski 56. https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/54188/harav-yitzchok-grodzinsky-recalls-the-last-moments-of-hagon-rav-elchonon-wasserman-hyd-before-his-murder.html 57. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Wolbe 58. https://www.jdn.co.il/breakingnews/1230669/ 59. https://www.torahmusings.com/2016/05/were-the-egyptians-right/ 60. https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/10/why-theodicy/ 61. https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34838&st=&pgnum=2&hilite= 62. https://agudah.org/the-jewish-observer-vol-12-no-8-october-1977chesvan-5738/ From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Sat Sep 12 10:18:12 2020 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 17:18:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Has anyone seen litereature about the following Issues when Davening BiYehidut (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. (2) If one says the piyut of the Avoda after his private Musaf shmoneh Esrei, can he fall korim, what about Aleinu Shanah Tovah, Beri'ah u-metukah! Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Sep 13 20:36:29 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2020 23:36:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 Message-ID: . asked several questions about Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4, who wrote: > And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the > Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. Spoiler alert: I have several problems with this Aruch Hashulchan, and I suspect that (as R' Wolberg suspects), the AhS had ulterior reasons for writing this (such as the inroads that Reform was making via their translations) and could not have really meant it l'halacha. In any case, there are other poskim who do allow translations. I will begin by giving my own translation of this section of AhS, so that if anyone disagrees with my understanding of what he said, they can bring it to my attention. I will break it into several numbered pieces for easier reference. >>> 1) Know that this [halacha] that Krias Shema and Tefilla may be said in any language - this is certainly when one translates really the entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh into the other language. For otherwise, it would not constitute Shema and Tefilla. 2) According to that, this law does not apply except in the time of the Mishna and Gemara, for they knew our language well, and they were able to translate it. 3) But now, it is well-known that we have a number of uncertainties in explaining the words, and the commentators are divided about it. For example, how do we translate "totafos"? Similarly, the pasuk "Shema Yisrael" has various explanations even of its simple meaning. Likewise in the section about tzitzis, some explain it [the word "tzitzis"] in the sense of "looking" [from the root tzadi yud tzadi], and some explain it as "going" [from yud tzadi aleph]. Same for the word "p'sil" and many [other words] like it. 4) Behold, the essential Name of Havay' - we don't know how to translate it correctly! There are those who translate it as Nitzchi [Eternal], and some translate it as Kol-Yachol [Almighty], and there is no translation at all for "Was and Is and Will Be", which is the real Name Havay', so they equate the translation of the Name Havay' with the Name Elokim. 5) [Here he says something about two very different ways of translating "V'chara af", but I don't understand what he is saying.] 6) And therefore, nowadays it is forbidden to recite Krias Shema or Tefilla or any brachos except in Lashon Hakodesh, and so have the Geonei Olam paskened for about eighty years now, and this is the bottom-line halacha. >>> The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it? He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists? According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty AND Was/Is/WillBe? In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3: 1) It seems in my humble opinion that there is an established halacha by which one can get out of any questionable bracha acharona. For example, one is unsure if he said a bracha acharona or not. Or if he *needs* to make a bracha acharona or not. There is a way to extricate himself from this safek. 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167. 3) If so, one can say "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, boray nefashos etc. ..." If he was obligated in this bracha, then he is yotzay with this. And if he didn't need this bracha, then he has *not* uttered the Name of Heaven in vain, because there is no mention of the Name at all. Look, you can say "Rachamana" a hundred times! 4) Or similar things with other brachos. You should think in your heart that if you need the bracha then it is [being said] for the sake of a bracha; and if not, then it's just talking. 5) I have done this myself several times when drinking hot drinks. The most obvious thing from this section is that the Aruch Hashulchan personally believes that a bracha CAN be said in Aramaic. You might respond that he makes an exception for Aramaic, which is arguably a Lashon Hakodesh. But look again at the AhS's requirements for an adequate translation of Hashem's Name - which is an absolute necessity when saying a bracha - and I don't think "Rachamana" conveys any sense of "Was and Is and Will Be". Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude someone from a partial translation. For example, one could translate most of the words, and leave the difficult words untranslated, which is almost exactly how ArtScroll handles the cited case of "totafos": "Bind them as a sign upon your arm and let them be tefillin between your eyes." If I'm understanding Siman 62 correctly, the AhS wants translation to be all-or-nothing, and since all is not possible, he feels justified in banning all translations. But in Siman 202, a partial translation is exactly what he is doing, by translating the initial words of the bracha, and then continuing with the regular Hebrew text. By the way, it seems that Rav Moshe Feinstein agrees that a translation must be all-or-nothing. See Igros Moshe OC 4:40:27, which is two paragraphs. In the first paragraph, he rejects the AhS's suggestion of using Brich Rachamana to get out of problems, precisely because you can't mix languages in that manner. (It's not at all clear to me why we're not allowed to mix languages, but it is very clear that Rav Moshe rejects it.) In the second paragraph he explains that even if one would say the entire bracha in Aramaic, that too would not resolve a safek bracha problem, because whereas the AhS had no compunctions against saying Rachamana a hundred times, *we* are noheg to avoid saying the Name in vain even when translated. As an aside, there are several teshuvos in which Rav Moshe explains his views on how to translate Hashem's Name for brachos in other languages. See for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:272, where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana, "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ... And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe, whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include concepts like "Was and Is and Will Be". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Sep 14 05:43:25 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:43:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. What is the minimum amount of shofar blowing that one is required to hear? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. In three different places the Torah commands us to blow shofar in the month of Tishrei: Twice in relation to Rosh Hashanah, and once in reference to Yom Kippur (Yovel ? Jubilee). The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 34a) connects the three verses and derives that each time the shofar is blown, it must be blown three times. The Gemara also proves that every blowing of the shofar actually consists of three parts: A Tekiah (a long blow), followed by a Teruah (a broken blow), followed by a Tekiah. This makes for a total of nine blows. The mitzvah is to blow the shofar nine times following this pattern. Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah However, because the Gemara records a disagreement as to the sound of the Teruah, we blow three variations. This amounts to 30 blows. 3X ? Tekiah ? Shevarim Teruah ? Tekiah=(12) 3X ? Tekiah ? Shevarim? Tekiah=(9) 3X ? Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah=(9) This is the minimum amount of shofar blows that one should hear to fulfill their obligation. If even this is too much, at the very least one should make sure to hear at least ten blasts. (See Mishnah Berurah 586:22 & 600:7). Tekiah ? Shevarim Teruah ? Tekiah=(4) Tekiah ? Shevarim ? Tekiah=(3) Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah=(3) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 18:29:14 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 21:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur Message-ID: . R' Aryeh Frimer asked: > Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when > Davening BiYehidut > (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but > perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la > Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head: Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice. Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 06:38:38 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:38:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Q. Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 565:5) writes that the "Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim" > (thirteen attributes of mercy, Shemos 34:6-7) may not be recited unless there is a > minyan. When these pesukim are recited in the context of prayer, they have the > elevated status of a "davar she'bikedusha," like Kaddish or Kedusha, that may only > be said in the presence of a minyan. I actually traced this back to its source - a new obsession of mine. It's a Tur in 565 (Hil. Ta'anis). "Rav Nosson writes there's no Minhag for an individual to say the 13 attributes." (Excuse the stilted word-for-word translation). The Tur then seems to make it clear that he's quoting this to ensure people don't find this Rav Nosson and pasken like it: "I don't know what the problem is since it's like saying Psukim, since the Chachamim only say (not to say w/o a Minyan) a Dovor Shebikdusha like Kaddish, Kedusha and Borchu" (Who is this Rav Nosson? The only Rishon I could find by this name was the Oruch.) The Darkei Moshe injects (on Rav Nosson's statement) saying "our Minhag is (for individuals) to say it, but not during the Shmoneh Esre. The Mahr"iv quoting the O"Z says individuals should not say Selichos." (I.e. they used to say Selichos on Ta'anis during Chazoras haShatz. Actually, we Yekkes still do.) See it online at https://www.sefaria.org.il/Tur%2C_Orach_Chaim.565.1?with=Darchei%20Moshe - for those who can see the Hebrew: , ???? ???? ?????:??:? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?"? ???? [?] ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???: [?] ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????"? ??? ?"? ???? ????? ???? ?????? So the Tur and the Darkei Moshe both agree that an individual can say the "Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim". The dissenting opinion says to skip Selichos altogether. >From there it's all downhill. The common denominator being that all Nosie Keilim seem to pasken like Rav Nosson and try to find workarounds. I find this fascinating. I wonder if the Tur now regrets ever mentioning this opinion. :-) Note that this is all mentioned in Hil. Ta'anis. In 581 where they discuss Selichot during Elul, they ignore this topic completely. KVT - Danny From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Sep 16 10:42:32 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:42:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] practical and detailed shir for Baalei tokaya and makri Message-ID: <089901d68c50$c22d7680$46886380$@touchlogic.com> Very good. Starts basic, but gets better.. >From Rabbi Mordechai Scheiner, rosh Kollel Ohr Yosef - toronto https://zoom.us/rec/share/xyvl_GE2lRo5GmE02A0XVqL4TEp3Kq4RqYfPZ4zAbezsR4D1c7G8LaIToB8dxYbe.0vgzJDhv9dDlViCP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 13:40:15 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:40:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <2110840790.2504917.1600178620157@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20200914185208.GC25700@aishdas.org> <2110840790.2504917.1600178620157@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20200917204015.GA749@aishdas.org> Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT: > Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim > we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is > problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out sifrei > Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos given to > 12 year olds, etc... > This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked how > we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to celebrate a > siyum that itself is iffy. > But when I wrote that, few of us really thought that Israel would be > closing down for the chagim, and that ever minute of shul in nearly all > of chu"l is increasing medical risk. So now we're talking about invoking > heteirim to party at the peril of the medically fragile in the community. > I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the > bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this year's > leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a Simchas > Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can anyone argue > for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that psychological need for > the majority of people? On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 2:03pm GMT, R Harry Maryles replied on Areivim: > It's true that most Shuls had a pretty big gap in their weekly Kriyas > HaTorah and that many Parshios were missed. But some Shuls hae made them > up. In a few cases no Parshios were missed. For example in my son's > neighborhood of Ramat bet Shemesh which is over 90% observant, my son > did KhT every Shabbos from his balcony with a Minyan made of of all of > his neighbors within earshot. (Don't know how he arrived at calling this > Teffilah B'Tzibur, but that was his Beshas Ha'dechak Psak.) > IIUC, Doing Hakafos on ST is a Minahg of the Tzibur, not the Yachid. > It is based on what the Klal as a whole does. The celebration of > completing yearly cycle with Hakafos is therefore appropriate this year > just like every year. But only along the lines I suggested because of > the pandemic. There are cases where every parashah was leined beause the members of the minyan can't disband anyway -- like in a nursing home or on an army base. But I fear you presented a false dichotomy. Yes, leining and therefore the siyum on leining we celebrate on ST are about the tzibur. But I wouldn't assume that means the global tzibur. After all, there was even a time when annual leining wasn't a universal norm. I had presented a third option, because I had assumed a neighorhood tzibbur. With all the modern complications now that most communities have shenei batei din ba'ir, as we put it WRT the tzibbur accepting Shabbos. But whether your town, your shul, or something else, that I didn't have a position on. So as I saw it, if no minyan in town leined the whole seifer Torah betzibbur, how is that community making a siyum? Shouldn't the shul making the party include at least person completing the text being mesayeim? In any case, there are at least those three possibilities, and we only agree on ruling out the first one, the yachid. But my point on Areivim, just like the point I made here to begin with, was more about most of the minhagim for celebrating Simchas Torah are on the defensive. We lein at night. (At least most of us do.) We take out more sifrei Torah than we read from. We give way too many people aliyos. We are relying on heteirim on a slew of dinim about kavod ST and qeri'as haTorah. We need a certain level of justification for it. We don't have to just say that ST celebrates someone else's completion of the Torah -- we need to be able to argue that's true strongly enough to justify those heteirim. Or, that we need ST for our mental health strongly enough to qualify as justification. Which is an approach I am more sympathetic to than saying I am dancing in my shul with a seifer Torah to celebrate the men of Nachal Yehudah (eg) and in the senior living facilities a couple of miles outside our eiruv at Daughter of Miryam completing a cycle of leining. Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries http://www.aishdas.org/asp are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 18 05:05:52 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:05:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Is one permitted to fast on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. One is not permitted to fast on Rosh Hashanah because Rosh Hashanah is a Yom Tov. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (OC 597:1) rules that one must eat, drink and rejoice on Rosh Hashanah. Nonetheless, unlike other Yomim Tovim, one should not overindulge, lest the solemn nature of the day will be obscured. However, there were Rishonim who held that it is permissible to fast during the daytime because Rosh Hashanah is a day of teshuva. Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l said that his great-grandfather, the Beis HaLevi, would fast both days. In fact, there were those who would fast even on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah because they considered the importance of teshuva on this day to be on the level of pikuach nefesh (life threatening), which overrides the requirement to eat a Shabbos seuda. Although in practice we follow the Shulchan Aruch and do not fast on Rosh Hashanah, the Mishnah Berurah (584:5) makes a distinction between Rosh Hashanah which falls on Shabbos, and Rosh Hashanah which falls on a weekday, as follows: When Rosh Hashanah falls on a weekday, we are permitted to extend the davening into the afternoon, while if Rosh Hashanah is on Shabbos, we are required to finish davening before chatzos (halachic midday) so as not to fast past the morning. As such, if one expects their shul to finish davening on Shabbos after chatzos, it is best to drink a tea or coffee in the morning before going to shul, to avoid fasting inappropriately on Shabbos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 18 05:17:03 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:17:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Laws & Customs: Month of Tishrei during the Corona period Message-ID: For those in quarantine, davening by themselves or in outside Minyanim Please see https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/groupsioattachments/14569/76906693/102/0?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJECNKOVMCCU3ATNQ&Expires=1600431735&Signature=d1788QfnWQyWHF1xjnl7Zn59EJg%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3D%22Tishrei+During+Corona.pdf%22 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Mon Sep 21 05:50:14 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 13:50:14 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? Message-ID: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT: > Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim > we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is > problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out > sifrei Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos > given to > 12 year olds, etc... BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So while it might be that the Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah out). Note that that also means that the siyum for the year, even in a normal year, is not complete (or about to be completed) when the sifrei Torah are taken out at night, as the first hakafos take place (at latest) on the night of Simchat Torah, and yet the finishing of the yearly reading only occurs the next day. Note the reason why I say at latest is because many Sephardim (although not all) have the custom of doing seven sets of seven hakafot which mean they do hakafot on Shmini Atzeret as well (three sets on Shmini Atzeret, to correspond with the three services, three sets on Simchat Torah, to correspond with the three services, and one after Simchat Torah). > This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked > how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to > celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy. There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah, something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah. Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations and to call to others to make a feast. *And further it is the custom* in our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every place according to its custom. *And further we are accustomed* to circle with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with the lulav *and all is because of joy* *Further we are accustomed* to call all the lads to the sefer Torah, ... and in every place according to their custom. *Further we are accustomed* to finish the Torah even with a child oleh..." That is, while you appear to be saying that *because* we make a siyum on the Torah *therefore* we do all these other halachically iffy customs, even the Rema does not say this. To the extent he gives a reason, it is "because of joy", and all the customs are as a result of *that* category. Which makes sense, because making a siyum justifies a seudah being considered a seudas mitzvah (and may justify the name of Simchas Torah, instead of second day Shmini Atzeret), and there are references in the gemara that seem to justify the making of a feast for a siyum, although the derivation is not really that straightforward, nowhere does it allow any of the other behaviour that might be Halachically iffy. On the other hand, simcha is a mitzvah d'orisa on yom tov, and indeed according to Sukkah 48a " It was taught in a braita: [Devarim 16:16] "and it will be completely joyous" this is to include the night of the last day of Yom Tov [lelei yom tov acharon]" Now of course, that is referring in the Torah to Shmini Artzeret, and it is interesting that in chutz l'aretz, we seem to have taken the especially joyous obligation of that d'orisa mitzvah, and attached it to what is the night of yom tov achron for us, which in fact is only minhag avosaynu b'yadanu. But be that as it may, it seems to me that, as the Rema says, the justification for all of these minhagim is simchas yom tov, and particularly the extra simcha of the final days of yom tov, and that they are independent of one another, so that the aspects related to making a siyum on the Torah are independent of taking the sifrei Torah out, and of doing the hakafos, and of singing and dancing. And if anything, the minhag of having a siyum on completing a full yearly reading of the Torah could perhaps be seen as being caused by the obligation to create extra joy on Shmini Atzeret/Simchas Torah, and not the other way around. We have arranged our schedules so that we have the joy of completely the Torah on this day, as Torah learning is in and of itself a form of joy (see eg the introduction to the Eglei Tal), so we arrange them to coincide. > I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the > bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this > year's leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a > Simchas Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can > anyone argue for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that > psychological need for the majority of people? But again, this assumes that all the minhagim on Simchas Torah are a direct result of the siyum, which I do not believe is the case. It is important to have Simchas Yom Tov, and to do what we can to maximise simchas Yom Tov, and if the siyum part is not possible, but the other parts are, then the other parts should be done. <> And the classic justification for these heterim is that the aseh of simcha is docheh, as per the Rema. However, because we are taking about simcha that is required by the Torah, it is linked to and part and parcel with simcha with the Torah - without the Torah there would be no obligation of such simcha, so simcha that is antithetical to the Torah, ie does not encompass kavod haTorah, is not justified. Which is why I am not even convinced that it is a tzibbur versus yachid thing. Would there be a problem if a Rav, who happened to live above the shul, took out the sefrei Torah and did hakafos with them with his family around an empty shul, because he was restricted by Covid requirements to his bubble, which did not contain a minyan? I'm not sure there would. There are potential issues with leining, and even more so with making birchas haTorah on such layning, but do we consider hakafos as a dvar shebekedusha that absolutely has to have a minyan? It is post gemara, so it is not so clear it can be a dvar shebekedusha, which might need to have been instituted by the Anshei Knesset Hagadola or at least not to be post Ravina and Rav Ashi (that might also turn on whether you follow the Aruch haShulchan and the Rokach, who hold that kaddish was instituted by the Anshei Knesset HaGadola, and that is what justifies its status as a dvar shebekedusha, or whether you follow the Shibbolei Ha-Leket and the teshuvas HaGeonim which seem to suggest that the whole institution of kaddish within prayer was instituted by the Geonim (and if so, whether a takana of the Geonim is and remains binding or it does not)). <> But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as something of an obligation of the tzibbur (the tzibbur would seem to be needed in order to make sure that we are making the widow happy). So to the extent that it is dependent upon simcha, then that obligation remains, even if the minhagim of the tzibbur, ie the way the tzibbur traditionally performs such simcha, might not be possible at the present time, and hence is not an obligation. -Micha Gmar Tov Chana From doniels at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 03:16:13 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:16:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur Message-ID: . R' Aryeh Frimer asked: > Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when > Davening BiYehidut > (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but > perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la > Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. R' Akiva Miller answered: > No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head: > Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it > certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice. > Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is > mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there. In a nutshell, you can see it here on Sefaria: https://tinyurl.com/y2qgtuyx It's a Mishna in Nedirim 3:1, discussed in Talmud 23a, codified in Yoreh De'a 211 to which the Ba'er Heitev decides that as long as one said it loud enough to be heard to one's own ears, it's valid. None of the commentators along the way mention publicity. The only issue they have is "Devorim She'B'Leiv" if it's whispered or thought. Along the way I learnt: You can say it ("just kidding about the Neder stuff") any time. Those who hold you don't have to say it right before making the Neder, don't give it an expiration date - IOW once a lifetime should be sufficient. Bottom line: If it works, you can chant the "futuristic" Kol Nidrei to yourself in an undertone. CLOR. Gmar Chasima Tova - Danny, not a Rabbi by any stretch of imagination. From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Sep 17 08:56:27 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:56:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Consumer Daf HaKashrus - Spices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I normally do not send out messages with attachments, but I could not locate this online. [See for attached PDF. -micha] From the pdf file > This article is an in-depth look at a specific category of vegetables: > spices. Spices refer to aromatic vegetable products used to season or > flavor foods. Less than 2% of food consumed in the United States are > spices, but what a difference that 2% makes! Without spices, all food > would be bland and unappetizing. > As mentioned, there are many spices exported by Israel, which create a > whole host of potential kashrus issues. All uncertified Israeli spices > present serious kashrus challenges in the form of tevel and shemitah. A > Mashgiach visiting a spice plant must be on the lookout for this. Because > of the aromatic and fragrant nature of spices, these spices will not > be batel in a mixture, as they are avida l'taama, added to mixtures > for taste, and anything which is added to a mixture for taste does not > become batel. This halachah is paskened by Rema in Yoreh Deah 98:8, > from the Gemara (Beitza 38b, Chulin 6a). See the attachment for much more. From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Sep 22 05:50:20 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:50:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Cheerios and Pas Yisroel Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Can one eat Cheerios during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva (ten days from Rosh Hashana to Yom Kippur) or Shabbos and Yom Tov for those who only eat Pas Yisroel on those days? What about other breakfast cereals? Must they be Pas Yisroel? A. There are differing opinions as to whether Cheerios is considered pas. The OU poskim do not consider it pas, because of the size of the individual pieces and the manner in which it is made. Likewise, wheat flake cereals are not considered ?bread-like? and therefore do not need to be pas Yisroel. Corn and Rice Cereals are, by definition, not bread items. See our Pas Yisroel List ? 5781 at OUKosher.org for OU certified Pas Yisroel brands and products. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 14:09:36 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200922210936.GD19252@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 11:36:29PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was > supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated > prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in > the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it? The SA often just echoes Chazal when the case is considered theoretical. So, if he didn't see people really trying to say Shema in la'az, the Mechaber wouldn't deal with the practical problems of trying to do so and just note that hypothetically, Chazal said it was mutar. > He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators > lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are > incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text > holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to > adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists? Or maybe just the right shade for each instance. If you get too nitpicky, you'll note that two different speakers of the same language have different memories and associations with many of their different words, and don't have bidiyuq the same things in mind when using them. Exact precision is a rabbit's hole to fall down. The question is defining "exact enough". Maybe exact enough to relay one out of multiple peshatim? WRT semitic languages, there are going to be much closer matches. So, davening in Aramaic seems much more doable than davening in a Romantic or Germanic language. > According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the > Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word > "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those > languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's > satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty > AND Was/Is/WillBe? Or maybe Moshe translated to a phrase. Or maybe, because Moshe knew which connotation of the sheim was primary in each context, he was able to pick the right translation for each. > In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my > translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3: ... > 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana, > Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe > (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written > in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167. But he pointedly does NOT say that it's a good idea even if it's not a a safeiq. So it would seem translations are only good enough when there is no better way to deal with the situation. You're comparing what he says here lekhat-chilah with his solution for a bedi'eved. BTW, I think berikh Rachmana is about fulfilling the purpose of the berachah without trying to fulfill Chazal's coinage. Like if we said you would be be meqabel ol Malkhus Shamayim by saying Shema in English, but not yotzei the actual mitzvah of Q"Sh. Because there is no "atah", and "of this bread" isn't "Who Brings bread out of the earth". It's not even a close paraphrase, never mind translation. It's not even an exactness of translation issue. Like, what if a native Hebrew speaker followed AhS OC 202 by saying "Barukh haRachaman Adon Melekh haOlam vehalachmaniah hazot". He would also avoid the risk of berakhaha levatalah and also that of the geneivah-like behavior of eating without a berakhah. > Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the > entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did > he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude > someone from a partial translation.... Why? Maybe someone would think "If I get a perfect enough translation just until 'al levavekha' or just the first pereq, at least he would be yotzei deOraisa." And SE is a different kind of problem than Shema, since its core is baqashos, not miqra. > for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:[1]72, > where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have > assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana, > "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and > established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common > among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ... > And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe, > whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include > concepts like "Was and Is and Will Be". BUT... only for some of the dinim of Sheimos. Not translations of tefillos. As you started your discussion of RMF -- he agrees with the AhS that such translations don't exist. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, http://www.aishdas.org/asp others come to love him very naturally, and Author: Widen Your Tent he does not need even a speck of flattery. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 14:23:23 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:23:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:50:14PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot > HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So while it might be that the > Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to > come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein > and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think > it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah > out).... I was taught the same line of reasoning besheim haGra. (I emailed RSMandel to double-check if it was from him, and did he have the mar'eh maqom. Got impatient holding off this reply for an answer.) >> This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked >> how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to >> celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy. > There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah, > something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and > Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be > related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the > way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah. > Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman > 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs: > > "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and > make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are > accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations > and to call to others to make a feast. *And further it is the custom* in > our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the > sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every > place according to its custom. *And further we are accustomed* to circle > with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with > the lulav *and all is because of joy*..." The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah shel torah* venohagim...") And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah". And since the Rama told you the simchah in question is that of the siyum, I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum, and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a community that year. >> Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either >> way. > But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as > something of an obligation of the tzibbur... Yes, but we don't take the sifrei Torah out at night for any other yom tov. It's not "just" simchas YT. So the question is whether I can invoke sharing in *his* simchah over finishing the Torah to participate. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search http://www.aishdas.org/asp of a spiritual experience. You are a Author: Widen Your Tent spiritual being immersed in a human - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Sep 22 16:57:21 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:57:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] forms of teshuvah Message-ID: From R' Gil Student: Medieval Ashkenazic authorities prescribed a variety of strong acts of self-induced suffering as part of the teshuvah process, including long-term fasting, lashes, exile and more. Rabbeinu Peretz (Gloss to Semak, no. 53) lists four kinds of teshuvah: 1) teshuvas charatah, in which you regret the sin; 2) teshuvas ha-geder, in which you set additional boundaries for yourself to avoid sinning in the future; 3) teshuvas ha-kasuv, in which you undergo the punishment listed in the Torah for your sin; 4) teshuvas ha-mishkal, in which you inflict yourself with pain corresponding to the amount of pleasure you enjoyed with your sin. Of these four, the first is what we consider standard teshuvah and the second is going above and beyond. The third and fourth are not - and should not be - practiced today. The Vilna Gaon's brother (Ma'alos Ha-Torah, introduction) makes clear that we cannot undergo these harsh forms of teshuvah in our time (his time, even more so in our time) and emerge physically and religiously healthy. Instead, he recommends intense Torah study. Me- what is the nature of the paradigm change claimed by the Ma'alos Ha-Torah? Gct 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 Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Tue Sep 22 15:25:17 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:25:17 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: <> Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is: ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the Torah" That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is because of the custom of making of completing the Torah. So maybe you should argue that *this* year Simchas Torah should not be called Simchas Torah, but Shmini Atzeres sheni! He does not say, as you have said "the simcha is that of completing the Torah*. << And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah".>> Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag. Most of the prohibitions however (such as not taking the sifrei Torah out for no reason, reading over and over, calling up ketanim) are because of kavod haTorah, ie kavod haTorah is the counterweight reason *not* to do these minhagim. However similar to the idea of oseh docheh lo ta'aseh, the mitzvah of simcha is able push aside certain kevod haTorah restrictions in certain circumstances, but clearly not in ones that are in fact a disgrace to the Torah, but only ones that enhance the simcha of the Torah. There is no reason for a siyum to push aside prohibitions relating to kavod haTorah. <> But he didn't he told you that is why the day has that name, not that the simcha in question is the siyum. All the different minhagim, including, but not limited to, having the siyum, are because of simcha. << I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum, and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a community that year.>> Then he need not have listed them as "v'od nehagu" etc <> But the gemora learns the simcha for yom tov acharon shel chag out of a separate pasuk to the psukim that we learn it for Sukkos. Why would Shmini Atzeres need its only special pasuk with its own special limud, why does the Torah not combine it with the simcha learnt out for sukkos? The mishna understands that one is obligated in the same way just like the seven days of sukkos so why are they not combined in the Torah? The logical answer is because there is something somewhat different about the nature of this simcha (and in fact one might be tempted to darshen the ach, not as the gemora does to exclude the first night of sukkos, but to say that it is a day of simcha only, not simcha and sukkah and arba minim, but only simcha). The custom, and the Rema makes it very clear that it is a custom, of making the siyum is very late, given that we know that a three year cycle was in existence for many years, and yet the descriptions of what was going on on Simchas Torah well predate the universality of the one year cycle (descriptions amongst the Geonim, inter alia). The fundamental mitzvah on Shmini Atzeres/Simchas Torah is therefore ach sameach! The interesting question is why in chutz l'aretz, other than amongst those Sefardim who start the hakafot on Shmini Artzeres, we do *not* take the sifrei Torah out on Shmini Atzeres. However, to the extent that one is sitting in the sukkah on Shmini Artzeret, and it is still thereby linked to sukkos, then maybe it makes sense that in chutz l'aretz, the day that is ach sameach, with no link to what went before, is Simchas Torah, despite it only being yom tov sheini shel golios. <> But only if you assume the linkage that, against the explicit language of the Rema, the cause of all the other minhagim is the siyum, including where they are otherwise in violation of kevod haTorah, rather than that the special simcha due to the special pasuk is the cause of all the minhagim including the siyum. GCT! -Micha Regards Chana From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 03:12:16 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 06:12:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? Message-ID: . Several posters referenced the Rama, which R"n Chana Luntz translated as: > The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they > rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of > the Torah Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to our private learning of the parshios, such as those who learned the parsha each week by reading it themselves from a chumash while the shuls were closed? Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv, but by taking the time and effort to actually mouth every single word myself (rather than just listen to the kriah and let my mind dwell on this pasuk and that pasuk), I feel that my learning of Chumash this year was considerably better than in years past, and I'll have no problem celebrating that, to whatever extent our rav allows. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 23 05:51:56 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 12:51:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Medicine on Yom Kippur Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May a person who is ill, but is not in mortal danger (choleh she?ein bo sakana) consume unsweetened medicine on Yom Kippur? A. This is the subject of a dispute between the Acharonim. According to Shaagas Aryeh (75-76), one is not permitted to take medicine on Yom Kippur. Even though medicine is not a ?food?, and the prohibition to consume medicine is Rabbinic in nature ? which is normally waived for people who are ill, nonetheless, by swallowing the pill , the individual demonstrates that he or she considers it as food, and it is therefore forbidden on Yom Kippur. K?sav Sofer (OC 111) strongly disagrees and maintains that consuming medicine when ill does not demonstrate that it is a food item, and therefore medicine may be swallowed on Yom Kippur. Igros Moshe (OC 111:91) concurs with this ruling as well. If a person must drink water to swallow a pill, contemporary poskim recommend adding a bitter substance to water, such as a significant amount of lemon juice or vinegar, so that the water has a very unpleasant taste. This was the opinion of Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul, (Ohr L?Tziyon, IV 15:8), Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (Ashrei Ha?Ish III 23:230) and Rav Nissim Karelitz (Chut HaShani, Yom Kippur p. 145). If the pill is sweet, it is considered to be a food independently of its medicinal properties. In such instances, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach advised that the pill should be wrapped in a tissue and swallowed in that manner (Shemira Shabbos KeHilchasa 39:8; Halichos Shlomo, Yom HaKippurim 5:8). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 11:23:34 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 14:23:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200923182334.GA22665@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:25:17PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing >> the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah >> shel torah* venohagim...") > Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is: ... > Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah > because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the > Torah" > That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is > because of the custom of making of completing the Torah.... Because "shesimeichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh legamrah shel Torah". The simchah and making the mishteh are for the completion of the Torah. And thus the name of the holiday reflects that simchah. ... > Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha > on yom tov acharon shel chag. But the Rama doesn't say simchas YT, just "mishum simchah". OTOH, as we saw, the Rama opens by speaking of the simchah and mishteh of completing the Torah. So, if he just says "simchah" afterwards, why would I think it is anything but the "semeichin ... legamra shel Torah" already brought into the discussion? You're assuming the Rama changes topics without telling us. (Of course, I didn't think any of this out before my first post. I just read the sources, not thinking about other possibilities until it became a discussion. But I can't say that you convinced me yet that I brought too many unconscious assumptions to the table, that your read is comparably viable.) On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 06:12:16AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public > laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to > our private learning of the parshios... It refers to the completion that occured that morning, which was indeed leining. The AhS ad loc says the party is traditionally paid for with pledges by the Chasanim. Not, as I see done today, that the qiddush the next two Shabbosos are. > Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv... A siyum is a siyum. People make a siyum on a mesechtes gemara that they had no particular chiyuv to learn over learning something else. I just don't think we were mesaymim what the minhagim were established to celebrate. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. http://www.aishdas.org/asp If you want time, you must make it. Author: Widen Your Tent - Charles Buxton - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Wed Sep 23 15:37:44 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 23:37:44 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: > Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have > simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag. And RMB replied: <> I suppose the reason it seems to me obvious that mishum simcha, means the simcha of Yom Tov, is because: a) when the poskim say something is meshum simcha in the context of yom tov, they mean the mitzvah of simcha - for example: the Levush and the Bach (and numerous others, I believe) hold that the hakafos of the lulav during sukkos is mishum simcha (or at least the hakafos in the Beis HaMikdash, come directly out of the pasuk mandating simcha, and we then do them as a zecher. In that context, various rishonim and achronim discuss whether an avel is permitted to do hakafos, ie whether the simcha of the day pushes of the fact that a avel is forbidden from simcha. And in all these discussions, when they talk about simcha or mishum simcha, simchas Yom Tov is understood. b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas Torah. But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion would need to be had. c) On the other hand, the obligation to have a seudas mitzvah on finishing learning comes from a statement in gemora shabbas (118b-119a) where Abaye says: he should be rewarded because whenever he heard about a tzurba d'rabanan finishing a mesechta, he would make a yom tov for the Rabbis, which is understood to mean a seudas mitzvah. This is listed as part of a whole list of various Amoraim stating what it is that they believe they should get a special reward for, including being careful in known mitzvos (such a tefillin and tzitzis, and three meals on shabbas) and what are identified as good minhagim (such as not going daled amos with his head uncovered). It is really not clear into which category Abaye's statement falls. And while the Rema in Yore Deah siman 246, si'if 26 does say that " when one finishes a mesechet it is a mitzvah to rejoice and to make a feast, and it is called a seudas mitzvah" - to hang everything we do on Simchas Torah on this one statement in the gemora seems like a breathtaking chiddush. And think about it this way. If I were to finish a mesechta, here today, does that mean I can take the sifrei Torah out of the aron, dance around with them, call up some children (and some people together at once, making the brachos at once), read multiple times, take the sifrei Torah out into the street, (and, if it was shabbas, dance even if in general I held that dancing on shabbas is not permitted, as per the Shulchan Aruch?). Given that the essential siyum that is described in the gemora and referred to by the Rema is on a mesechet in Shas, then all this should be permissible on any day of the week, not just Simchas Torah. Because mai nafka minah. So I suppose it seems to me obvious that all the heterim the Rema refers to cannot be because of the simcha of the siyum, especially as the heterim were in place before the siyum was necessarily happening, historically, which again seems to suggest that the one does not cause the other. I do see that in fact the Aruch HaShulchan seems to support you, as in Orech Chaim siman 669 si'if 2 he says in the middle of the piece: "And also we are accustomed that two are called up together and bless, and even though it is not correct in any event because of the joy of the siyum they do so ." - whereas I would have thought he should say the joy of Yom Tov. So the Aruch HaShulchan would seem to be supporting your position. But still, I cannot see, if the Aruch HaShulchan is saying this, how he can be correct, because the consequences must surely be that any time there is a siyum, such a heter would then be permissible, or at least tolerable. I just can't see how this is right. I cannot see how, even if the whole of klal yisrael this year decided that we were going to have a siyum on kriyas hatorah when we had had a full year since last lockdown (ie assuming a vaccine became widely available and was effective), somewhere in the middle of the year, it would it be mutar as part of holding that siyum on krias haTorah on an ordinary Shabbat, to have the usual Simchas Torah heterim. According to you it would be, but I cannot see that this can be right, and I struggle to believe the Rema would authorise it were he here today. <> Not really. Given that mishum simcha in the context of a Yom Tov is logically understood to mean simchas yom tov, without the modifier, the Rema is just explaining in greater detail why we do everything we do before. That *includes* holding the completion of the krias hatorah cycle on Simchas Torah. ie we arrange to have the siyum on Simchas Torah, *because* of the nature of Simchas Torah, not that Simchas Torah is the way it is because of the siyum of finishing the reading cycle. -Micha Gmar Tov Chana From zev at sero.name Wed Sep 23 17:48:28 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: On 23/9/20 6:37 pm, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an > avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas > Torah. But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion > would need to be had. Last year, when I was an avel, I was told that for Hoshanos I should not go around at all, and should lend my arba minim to someone else who hasn't got them, and have him go around in my place. (Or at least that's how I understood it; it may be that lending the arba minim was simply a suggestion to do someone a chesed, since I wasn't using them.) For Simchas Torah I was told that I could go around with the group, but should not hold a sefer torah while doing so; after the hakafa I could take a sefer and dance with it. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781 zev at sero.name "May this year and its curses end May a new year and its blessings begin" From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 25 05:07:22 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 12:07:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?What_foods_should_one_eat_at_the_seuda_?= =?windows-1252?q?ha=92mafsekes_=28last_meal=29_on_erev_Yom_Kippur=3F?= Message-ID: Please see https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/foods-one-eat-seuda-hamafsekes-last-meal-erev-yom-kippur/?category=yom-kippur&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shsh%20Haazinu%205781%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=32573763&spUserID=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&spJobID=1784317155&spReportId=MTc4NDMxNzE1NQS2 What foods should one eat at the seuda ha?mafsekes (last meal) on erev Yom Kippur? | OU Kosher Certification Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 608:4) writes that on erev Yom Kippur, one should eat light foods that are easily digestible, so one will be able to daven on Yom Kippur with proper concentration. There is a common custom to dip challah in honey. Mishnah... oukosher.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emteitz at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 13:32:06 2020 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 16:32:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What will be with Simchas Torah Message-ID: The comment was made, "Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to our private learning of the parshios, such as those who learned the parsha each week by reading it themselves from a chumash while the shuls were closed? Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv, . . ." It isn't? See OC 385:1. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Sep 29 05:08:16 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:08:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is an Esrog Muktza on Shabbos Message-ID: >From today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. This year, the first day of Sukkos is Shabbos, and there is no mitzvah of lulav and esrog. Can I show my neighbor my beautiful esrog, or is it muktza? Q. Shulchan Aruch (OC 658:2) writes that a lulav is muktzah on Shabbos. Since there is no mitzvah of lulav and esrog on Shabbos, a lulav serves no purpose, and it is mukztah like other tree branches. However, an esrog may be moved, since it has a function; one may smell the fruit. (There is a dispute if the beracha on fragrances is recited when smelling an esrog on Sukkos, since the primary function of an esrog on Sukkos is for the mitzvah of lulav and esrog and not for fragrance. To avoid the uncertainty of reciting a beracha, the Shulchan Aruch recommends not smelling an esrog on Sukkos. Nonetheless the Mishnah Berurah (658:5) writes there is no restriction to smell an esrog on Shabbos and recite a beracha, because there is no mitzvah on that day.) Since, it has a function, it is not muktza, and it may be moved for any purpose. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt?l (Shmiras Shabbos K?Hilchaso 22: note 62) writes that today, since people are protective of their esrogim and will not pass them around to be smelled, they are categorized as ?muktza machmas chisaron kis? (expensive or delicate items that are generally stored in a safe location), which may not be moved for any reason on Shabbos. The Aruch Hashulchan (OC 308:17) appears to rule this way as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 03:05:03 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 06:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: . I have long been bothered by why we cannot start or stop Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/geshem without a formal announcement , yet no announcements at all are required for starting and stopping any of the other changes to our tefilos. This past spring, in Avodah 38:24, I quoted a teshuva from Rav Hershel Schachter, where he tackled this question. (It is titled "Piskei Corona #9: Hallel on Pesach Night and Tefillas Tal". "Our Rav" refers to Rav JB Soloveitchik z"l; the parentheses are Rav Schachter's.) > There is a big difference between She'eila (V'sen Tal Umatar > Livracha) and Hazkara (Mashiv Haruach). See what I wrote in > the name of our Rav in MiPeninei HaRav (section Tefila, number > 5), that changing the descriptions of Hashem (from Mashiv > Haruach to Morid Hatal) requires Reshus Hatzibur, and an > individual is not allowed to make changes on his own. But I still don't understand what makes Mashiv Haruach so unusual. According to Rav Schachter's logic, shouldn't we also need Reshus Hatzibur to change the description of Hashem between HaKeil HaKadosh and HaMelech HaKadosh? Moreover, why is this Reshus Hatzibur required *every* *single* *time* that we start or stop Mashiv Haruach? Why isn't it sufficient that Chazal ordained that we start it every year on Shmini Atzeres, and stop it every year on Pesach? I once questioned how our Yom Tovim have any d'Oraisa status at all: If there's no Beis Din to declare that a certain day was Rosh Chodesh Tishrei, then where does Yom Kippur's status come from? The answer I got (Eliyahu Kitov, The Book of Our Heritage, v 1 pg 230) was that Hillel's beis din was mekadesh in *advance* all future Roshei Chadashim that would be calculated according to his rules. According to this reasoning, the required Reshus Hatzibur doesn't have to come from the gabbai or the chazan. It comes from Chazal, who ordained this schedule of changes to the Amidah, so when the calendar says to make a change, my requirement to do so comes automatically, whether I'm in shul or not, just like for all the other changes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Sep 30 12:02:34 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:02:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] fear of death Message-ID: Sheldon Solomon is a social psychologist at Skidmore College. He earned his B.A. from Franklin and Marshall College and his doctoral degree from the University of Kansas. He is best known for developing terror management theory, along with Jeff Greenberg and Tom Pyszczynski which is concerned with how humans deal with their own sense of mortality Sheldon Solomon - "I feel like there's a real sense in which doing these studies and writing books and lecturing has been my way of avoiding directly confronting my anxieties by turning it (me - fear of death) into an intellectual exercise" [Me - sounds like it could've been said by R'Chaim] Is this a common approach in orthodox circles Gmar tov 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 llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 30 06:10:27 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:10:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Question for Today's Times Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May one fulfill the mitzvah of picking up their lulav and esrog while wearing gloves? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 651:7) writes that if a person wrapped a cloth around their hand and picked up the lulav, some say one has not fulfilled the mitzvah. This is because the cloth is a chatzitza (barrier) between the hand and the lulav. The Mishnah Berurah (651:33) writes that the same applies if one is wearing gloves. He also explains that the reason Shulchan Aruch writes ?some say?, is because this is a matter of dispute among Rishonim. The opinion of the Ran is that if one wrapped their hands with cloth or put on gloves, the cloth is viewed as an extension of one?s hand, and as such, it is not a barrier. Therefore, if one did pick up the lulav while wearing gloves, the lulav should be lifted again to fulfill the mitzvah in accordance with those who view the glove as a chatziza. However, a new beracha would not be said because the mitzvah was already fulfilled according to the Ran. One who must wear gloves in shul should recite the berachos and shake the lulav at home before coming to shul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Jul 1 05:12:56 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:12:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ben Noach and mitzvas kiddush hashem Message-ID: <043501d64fa0$f4d21a60$de764f20$@touchlogic.com> I believe a few issues ago someone asked if benei noach are obligated in mitzvas kiddush hashem (to be moser nefesh to avoid their 7 mitzvos, as we are obligated wrt murder/arayos/AZ) See toldos Noah at length on this subject. Pg. 247-270 Email offline if you want scans.. Are they commanded in mitzvas kiddush hashem (no - rambam) Are they allowed to be moser nefesh for mitzvas kiddush hashem (machlokes) Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid killing someone (machlokes) Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid abortion. q etc From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 1 09:40:03 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 16:40:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux Message-ID: I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? 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 mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Jul 1 15:31:10 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:31:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status Message-ID: <052501d64ff7$52b1d1b0$f8157510$@touchlogic.com> https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/kosher-appliances/467/shattered-dre ams/ ... What is induction cooking? Induction cooking is a revolutionary energy efficient way of cooking without heat. How do you cook without heat? The answer is with electro-magnetic energy. The conventional burner is replaced with a coil of tightly wound copper wire under the glass cooktop. Turning on the "burner" sends electro-magnetic energy through the coil. If you placed your hand on the coil area, you would feel nothing. If you placed an aluminum pan on the same area you would still feel nothing. However, by placing an iron skillet or a pot with an iron core or magnetized stainless steel on the cooktop, the magnetized skillet completes the magnetic connection and the electro-magnetic field of energy transfers directly into the pan. This causes the iron molecules to move very rapidly, giving off heat. In turn, the cookware cooks the food. Lifting the pan off of the cooktop breaks the magnetic connection, and you will no longer be cooking. The cooktop will be heated by the "magnetic" pot or pan, but it does not get hot from the coil. Consequently, any spill onto the ceramic cooktop surface will be a result of an irui kli rishon, spillage from a hot pot, not a heated cooktop as you would have in conventional cooking. Hence, if one would want to kasher the cooktop, it could be accomplished by a lesser means of kasherization, irui kli rishon.10 Although induction cooking offers a koshering benefit, the cooktop cannot be used on Shabbos or Yom Yov because the cooking connection is made once the pot is put onto the coil area. Similarly, one would not be able to remove the pot from the cooktop on Shabbos or Yom Tov because one would be "disconnecting" the magnetic field by removing the pot. While the ability to kasher an induction cooktop is an advantage, the disadvantage of not being able to use it on Shabbos or Yom Tov makes this cooktop impractical, unless one has more than one cooktop in the kitchen (an induction for during the week, and a non-induction for Shabbos and Yom Tov). As with every new advent of technology, one balabusta's dream is another balabusta's nightmare. From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 03:43:44 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:43:44 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 3:00 PM Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was > forbidden. So at least for Ashkenazim this whole issue should not > exist. Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut. > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for the gezeira seem to apply. Even for Sephardim, since the SA is meikel in seif 4 in the case of servants in a beit yisrael. Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 15:43:22 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:43:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:27:08AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > RMB writes: >> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and that >> the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / minhag she'eino >> chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done. > So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b: > Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, v'Rav > Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: > Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? People practice like REbY. Why? R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example of BY chalaq R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah I presume you would say something like: R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: it'r universal pesaq R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something entirely different? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. Author: Widen Your Tent - Rachel Levin Varnhagen - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From cantorwolberg at cox.net Thu Jul 2 05:57:12 2020 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:57:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Something to Ponder Message-ID: To paraphrase this profound statement below by R? Yitzchok from the Talmud R.H. (16b) which is quite timely: Any year that begins without the straightforward, clear and unequivocal tekiya, will sadly end with the wavering sound of defeat ? the terua. ??"? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 05:12:53 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:12:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: . In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this is the one I want to ask about.) > The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation > of Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana > (danger). Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the > Mishnah, shuls were located outside of the cities where it was > not safe to be alone at night. The Rabbis were concerned that > people who came late to shul might be left alone while finishing > to daven. To give latecomers a chance to catch up and finish > davening with everyone else, Chazal extended the davening by > adding Mei'ein Sheva. I've heard this same explanation many times from many sources, but I've never understood it. Mei'ein Sheva is shorter than a single page in most siddurim - does its presence really lengthen the service significantly? If the shuls were outside the cities, it must have taken a certain amount of time to get home, and even to get to the outskirts of the city. Were the latecomers unable to catch up to their neighbors? Were the on-time people unwilling to stay in shul for the one or two minutes needed for the latecomers to finish? If this problem was sufficiently significant for Chazal to enact this measure, there were probably several latecomers every week, not just a single latecomer now and then. If so, couldn't the latecomers simply wait for each other, even if the on-time people rushed to get home? There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better? Thank you in advance. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 07:14:04 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:14:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200702141404.GB25994@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 01:43:44PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was > > forbidden.... > > exist. Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut. > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and > pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh" > it includes any form of cooking by heat... Or, any form of cooking by fire, whether broiling, roasting or boiling or frying in water or oil that are heated by fire. For an example that predates the taqaah, solar cooking. Does a rishon deal with the question of eating an egg cooked in the sand that was placed there by a non-Jew? And, as I opened in my first response, it's not just the Rama; "al ha'eish" and variants are common in the discussion. I don't think it's an Ashkenazi thing, just because the SA doesn't use the idiom himself. > That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a > Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for > the gezeira seem to apply.... The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for refu'ah beShabbos. Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking via fire. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, http://www.aishdas.org/asp eventually it will rise to the top. Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 2 07:13:40 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:13:40 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> > RMB wrote: >> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and >> that the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / >> minhag she'eino chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done. And I wrote: > So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b: > Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, > v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: > Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? <> Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim. If you were having a shiur about the halacha of meat, it would be remiss of you to mention the one, and not the other. And if you were giving a shiur to both Ashkenazim and Sephardim, I hope you would say - CYLOR [the L of course standing for "local"], rather than saying "we pasken" one way or the other. Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel, you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like. There are other opinions, and they might have been brought, but the end of the shiur would say - follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov, whereas I would hope that would not be what you would say regarding BY chalaq. <> But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>. Glatt is a tricky one, because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin. And the question then comes down to, why is it that someone keeps glatt, is it because he wants to be machmir for those who think it is really following the BY's iqur hadin, or is it because that is what his community does. If he is just doing it because he lives with other Hungarians so does it, but he really thinks the Rema is right, and it is a chumra that the people came up with (which you can argue it is, particularly because glatt is not the same as BY chalak) then it is a minhag garua. But if the community does it because they are really holding like the BY (at least to an extent), despite the Rema, I would say it is a minhag chashuv. I thought the better example of what you were saying is milchigs on Shavuos, which has no Rav psak behind it, but which has Rabbinic approval in the form of the Rema. That shows the distinction between what I thought you were arguing and what I am much more clearly. Ie that according to you minhag chashuv has no Rabbinic psak source, it is something the people came up with, but it is a religious practice that the Rabbis then approved, whereas I am saying that for a minhag chashuv to be a minhag chashuv, there needs to be a rabbinic psak that the people are relying on, even if other communities hold differently. And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, and the community then followed. It is not some religious idea, like milchigs on Shavuos, that the community came up with independently and then was approved. If R' Eliezer or Rabbi Meir had never paskened the way they did, then the minhag would never have arisen. That, I thought, was the fundamental distinction between what I am saying and you are saying. That I was saying to be a minhag chashuv, it has to be originally Rav psak derived, that people then followed. Whereas I understood you as saying that a psak is a psak, and different from a minhag chashuv, which had to be people derived, ie bottom up, albeit with Rav approval post fact. And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag? <> But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good thing. Especially as we discussing what are needed for an eruv (a halachic device), or whether the kohanim should duchan during Mincha and nei'ila of Yom Kippur. These aren't things like going around with baskets on your head, or squeezing fruit. They are religious acts. <> Yes. << R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq>> Yes, although I prefer to phrase it the psak that the people as a community [I prefer that to the term "local" as it sounds limited, while communities can be large or small] have adopted following Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, or Rabbi Meir [out of the options available], making it the minhag chashuv. <> I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in psak. To the point where their psak is not a valid psak. The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. Regarding R' Yochanan I believe I am following Rashi. Both Rashi, Tosfos and the Rosh refer us to Ta'anis 26b where it explains that if it is the halacha, you teach it "b'pirka" - ie you learn it out in the public halachic discussions. If it is minhag, you don't teach it b'pirka, but if someone comes to you and asks, you posken that way, and where it says nahagu - one does not rule this way, just "I avid, avid, v'lo mehadrinan lei". And Rashi in Ta'anis, says: U'man d'amar nahagu [ie Rabbi Yochanan] - mashma: hen nohagu me'alehen, aval aino ikar. Uminhag mashmar - Torat minhag yesh b'davar, uminhag kosher hu. The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher. That rather sounds like either it is a minhag taus [which in Yerushalmi speak is aino minhag, such as not working all motzei shabbas, even though this is clearly a religious practice] or a norm that has halachic impact. But it should not be dignified with the name minhag. However over in Eruvin Rashi (quoted approvingly there by Tosfos and the Rosh) uses the language - aval i avide lo machinan byadayhu - ie if they do it, we don't protest. That sounds much more like the minhagim that the Tosfos and the Rosh were discussing in Pesachim as being minhag lo chasuv (ie tolerated, and not gone against in front of, ie you are not to rule publically in front of them, but you don't actually have to keep), which is contrasted to a minhag chasuv. Tosfos in Brachos 52b (d"h nahagu ha'am) draws a different distinction between the situation over in Ta'anis and in Eruvin (and elsewhere, such as Rosh Hashana) and the situation in Brachos where Rabbi Yochanan again says nahagu ha'am [like Beis Hillel in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda - the subject matter being whether we say the blessing over the spices before or after the blessing over the flame in havdala]. Because we [and I think we all in fact, as Tosfos says] l'chatchila go according to this R' Yochanan that we make the blessing over the spices before the flame, and yet it would seem from Eruvin 62b (as understood by Ta'anis) that l'chatchila one shouldn't follow where it says nahagu ha'am, just that where the people are so accustomed, we don't make them go back if they did it wrong (so in the case of the havdala, one would think one should really bless the flame first, and then the spices, just if people did it the other way around, we wouldn't make them repeat havdala). And Tosfos' answer there in Brochos is that over in Eruvin, the nahagu ha'am is contrasted to someone saying "halacha" which means "halacha l'chatchila u'morin ken" and therefore when somebody else says nahagu they are meaning bideved, "aval hacha yachol l'hios d'ain kan ele nahagu greida". Note however that in the case in Brachos everybody agrees the halacha is like Beis Hillel (versus Beis Shammai). The issue at stake is how to understand Beis Hillel - like Rabbi Yehuda or like Rabbi Meir. And while Rabbi Meir would seem to be the stam mishna, we follow Rabbi Yehuda. That feels to me less "al pi Talmud chacham" - it is more how the relevant Talmud Chacham understood another set of talmudei chachamim. Whereas the case in Eruvin 62b is regarding what R' Eliezer ben Yaa'kov himself held (regarding non-Jews assuring a courtyard for eruv purposes, if there was only one Jew) versus Rabbi Meir, or in Eruvin 72 (do you need a shituf and an eruv), or Ta'anis (whether on Yom Kippur the Kohanim should bless at Mincha and ne'ila) ie is a matter of direct psak versus psak. With the sense that according to Rabbi Yochanan the psak in question is plain wrong, and knowledgeable people should ignore it. I think you could thus alternatively argue that Brachos is a classic minhag garua that happened to accord with how Rabbi Yehuda understood Beis Hillel, which in the absence of a clear psak either way, we follow the order the people decided upon, for their own reasons, whereas in the other cases, it is a minhag taus, that the psak is clearly wrong in halachic terms, but because there is this da'as yachid position out there, the hachamim were not prepared, in bideved situations, to make people go back and redo. Or you can say that actually over in Brachos Rabbi Yochanan, while using the term nahagu ha'am, given that it was not used in contrast to minhag k', meant really to say minhag k' - making it a minhag chashuv. Or maybe in fact we just ignore Rabbi Yochanan's expression. And what we are actually following is the ma'ase shehaya of Rava. In any event, for me the key fact is the Rav Huna defines minhag explicitly as going according to a psak, something you, I believe, said couldn't happen. How you understand Rabbi Yochanan, who specifically does not use the term minhag, just nagu ha'am for something which (leaving aside the situation in Brachos) he disapproves of, is secondary. -Micha Regards Chana From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 07:36:54 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:36:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:13:40PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote: >> Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, >> v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: >> Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? >> <> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example >> of BY chalaq > Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is not > what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim... You totally lost me. Neither Shemu'el's nor R Yehudah's "we" are Askenazim or Separadim. ... > Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we > pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel, > you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben > Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like... We are in agreement. >> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt > But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common religious > practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>... Which is exactly what I have R Huna saying here. The actual halakhah is lenient, the hamon am in practice are nohagim to be stringent like REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the stringency. It's not din, but it's a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval -- a minhag chashuv. > Glatt is a tricky one, because of > the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin... Still, Hungarians are following it as minhag, and are more lenient than the Sepharadi half of the world BECAUSE it is "just" minhag. To them. The issue you raise is a distraction from explaining the gemara. > And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely > and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi > Meir, and the community then followed... > And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as > expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' > Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario, > and yet it has the definition of minhag? After the rabbinate said you didn't have to. So in that sense it is "bottom up". The masses chose to do something extrahalachic. >> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah > But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a > minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good > thing.... By "common" hanhagah tovah I meant in contrast to any kind of minhag. Something many pious people do, not the masses. Like learning all night on Shavuos in Lithuania circa 1890. But in principle, even if R Huna meant everyone was doing it: Why would hanhagah tovah mean that the rabbis endorsed it? And I think you then agree with this "in princple, when you write: >> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He >> can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi >> talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something >> entirely different? > I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact > something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a > non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in > certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are > accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The point being here, is > that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in > psak. To the point where their psak is not a valid psak. The problem > being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and > have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. R Yochanan can say something is a hanhagah tovah and not a pesaq nor even an actual minhag. > The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice > with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher... Which according to me is what "minhag garua" means. Whereas you're saying that R Yochanan refers to it as a hanhagah, but is not calling it a minhag garua. Despite the common shoresh. So we agree on w to understand this machloqes, we disagree with what to call each position. To me, Shemu'el and R Yehudah, by talking about pesaq aren't talking about minhag chashuv. To you there are. R Huna is definitely talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq. Which to me is a minhag chashuv and to you a minhag garua. And R Yochanan is talking about a practies that doesn't rise up to that level. Which to me is a minhag garua and to you not even that much. It's all just in the labels, but that changes how we read the rishonim. That is why I ignored all the gemaras you cited that don't use the /nhg/ shoresh. The rest of your post argues for something we agree about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. http://www.aishdas.org/asp All that is left to us is Author: Widen Your Tent to be as human as possible while we are here. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From zev at sero.name Thu Jul 2 08:08:02 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 11:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking > and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul > shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking > with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the food gets hot of its own accord. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 2 11:51:19 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:51:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <003001d650a1$c6ab7350$540259f0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: >> <> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example >> of BY chalaq > Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is > not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim... <> You wrote the words "parallel to my example of BT chalaq" - see above. I responded to *your* example of BY chalaq - because you said that "R' Yehuda amar Shemuel: that's what we pasken - is parallel to my example of BY chalaq" I totally agree that neither Shemuel's nor R' Yehuda's "we" are Ashenazim or Sephardim - but *you* said that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is parallel to your example of BY chalaq (which you contrasted to glatt), and BY chalaq versus glatt is about Ashkenazim and Sephardim. If you agree that BY chalaq is not a parallel, then there is no need for this discussion. But because of the parallel that you brought, I couldn't (and can't) see how you can make the statement below (which you say you agree with): > Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is > what we pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda > amar Shemuel, you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow > R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like... If we agree that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is *not* parallel to BY chalaq, then we can agree we understand R'Yehuda amar Shmuel the same. >> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like >> glatt > But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common > religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>... <> Err, ReBY is actually the lenient one (he says you need two Jews living in a chatzer to assur it for carrying). Rabbi Meir is the stringent one (he says you only need one Jew and the chatzer is assur). So transposing your explanation, but with the correct way round, do you agree that, "the actual halacha is strict, the hamon am are in practice nohagim to be lenient like REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the leniency. It is not din, but it is a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval - a minhag chasuv"? Now do you think that if the people did not have ReBY to rely on, but had just come up with this by themselves, against the halacha of Rabbi Meir, Rav Huna would be so tolerant? If yes, then why did he phrase it as minhag k'RebY? Why didn't he say that if there is only one Jew in the courtyard, the minhag is to carry (because it doesn't' matter whether ReBY said so or not)? But if it *does* matter that ReBY said so, then you need more than just the people coming up with this idea of only one Jew living on the chatzer themselves. You need ReBY, or some other Rav, to have said so, followed by community acceptance to have it become a minhag. > Glatt is a tricky one, > because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin... > And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as > expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' > Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated > scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag? <> There were two different piskei halacha out there. ReBY (the lenient one) and R' Meir (the stringent one). R' Yehuda amar Shmuel states emphatically that ReBY is right, Halachically, and that the halacha is like him. R' Huna appears not to agree, otherwise he would have said what R' Yehuda amar Shemuel said. Rather, he accepts that the people having made the choice to go for the lenient position as a valid minhag. It is partially bottom up in that the people have made a choice between Psak A and Psak B, and decided to follow Psak A, in this case the lenient psak, but I do not believe they have decided to do something extrahalachic independent of there being two piskei halacha out there. It is the same scenario as following R' Yossi for milk and chicken, or Rabbi Eliezer for cutting the wood to make the knife to do the bris on shabbas. Or moving a lit candle on shabbas. Or working or not working erev pesach morning. Each case is the same underlying scenario: there were a range of piskei halacha out there. And certain communities, or sometimes the whole people, decided to follow one psak over another (even though in pure halachic terms that isn't necessarily the halacha). That is what makes it a minhag chasuv, as articulated by the Ri and the Rosh, ie that it is al pi Talmud chacham, and not just something the people came up with on their own, even where the people can provide religious justification. RMB: >> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah Chana: > But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a > minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a > good thing.... <> *Hanhaga tova* is *your* language, not mine. I assume you mean R' Yochanan here, not R' Huna, because you are the one who applied the words hanhaga tova to R' Yochanan in a previous post. I don't at all think that R' Yochanan is describing what he thinks of as a "hanhaga tova". I think (and I believe Rashi and Tosfos agree with me) that in this context if you have to use the term hanhaga, then he believes he is describing a hanhaga ra. <> No idea what you mean here. >> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? >> He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY >> is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to >> mine or something entirely different? > I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact > something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a > non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish > people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things > people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The > point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is > actually flat out wrong in psak. To the point where their psak is not > a valid psak. The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the > people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. <> He could, but in the context, where he is dealing with a situation where there is a lenient psak and a stringent psak, and where the people are going according to the lenient psak, he is clearly not saying that. He is saying it wrong what the people are doing, but if you come across somebody who has done it, they either don't have to reverse what they have done, or you don't need to create a fuss (as they have what he considers a da'as yachid to rely on). Depending on which Rashi you follow (and presumably Rashi/Tosfos in Eruvin had a different girsa in Ta'anis, given that they don't quote "not reversing", but "not protesting"). > The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this > practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher... <> Hanhaga was, as mentioned, your language, not mine. I said that one interpretation of Rabbi Yochanan is a minhag garua - that is if you hold that it is something that one shouldn't protest. Just like all the other cases in Pesachim where the rabbis said not to protest the minhagim. However if it is something one should protest, just that one doesn't make people do things again (ie our girsa in Ta'anis), then that appears to be less than a minhag garua (more like a minhag taus). <> No, I don't think so. <> No, I never said that, and I don't think so. In the case of Shmuel and R Yehuda we are talking about psak. <> No. To me what R' Huna is talking about is also minhag chashuv. I didn't think you agreed with that, but am fine if you do. If you agree that this is a minhag chashuv, then it would seem that what we disagree about is whether or not Rav Huna is "talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq". You say definitely, ie "definitely talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq". I don't think this is right at all. I believe Rav Huna is talking about a common practice performed by the people *in light of ReBY's psak* Which is precisely why he phrases it as "minhag k'ReBY". Because the fact that there was a psak from ReBY is critical to his understanding. It is what makes it a minhag choshuv (and not a minhag garua). Just as the Ri and the Rosh and the Shach say that the definition of a minhag chasuv is that it is "al pi talmid chacham". This is "al pi talmid chacham" - the psak of ReBY, which is key to what drove the people. No ReBY, no such minhag. And R' Huna is expressing this clearly by linking the minhag with the psak of ReBY. <> Not quite. If we didn't have the girsa we do in Ta'anis, ie we had the girsa that Rashi and Tosfos in Eruvin seem to have had, I would say this was a minhag garua. Problem is, our girsa in Ta'anis doesn't just say, we don't protest, but we don't make them do over again or go back (given that in Ta'anis we are talking about kohanim duchaning at nei'lah, presumably that means we don't have the Shatz resay the non duchaning language, after the kohanim have ostensibly duchened, or make the kohanim sit down once they have said the bracha). That suggests that we do in fact protest if we can get to them before they get started duchening. I don't think something that the chachamim were prepared to protest, even if the view they are protesting is based on the psak of a Talmud Chacham, can be considered any kind of minhag, except perhaps a minhag taus. <> I agree it is all in the labels, but I thought there was something more fundamental here. My understanding of your position was that if the people were following a particular psak (such as the people following the psak of ReBY or the people following the psak of Rabbi Yehuda not to work on the morning of erev pesach), that could not be called minhag. Rathein your view minhag, including minhag choshuv, had to be something that was generated by the people themselves, like milchigs on Shavuos, ie completely bottom up. That is why I could not see how you characterised what R' Huna said, of minhag k'ReBY as minhag, as it didn't seem to fit. Whereas my understanding of a minhag chashuv was that it needed to have at its root a psak of a Rav, with the bottom up aspect of it being the people's, or a community of people's, decision to take on that particular psak, even in the face of disagreement from other Rabbonim. That seems to fit perfectly with Rav Huna's statement of minhag k'ReBY. I thus understand a completely bottom up minhag as falling within the category of minhag garua (or just minhag)- although even within that category, there are those that have strong rabbinic approval, and those that have weak to non-existent rabbinic approval (depending on how garua they are). But like your minhag chashuv, my minhag garua does have to relate to something religious/halachic, even though at some point one reaches a situation where the rabbis come out full force against what the people are doing. The reason I am so vague about the line between minhag garua and minhag taus, is that this line seems very difficult to define, Ie at what point does a minhag which is very garua tip into a minhag taus seems hard for me to pinpoint (I have been looking at two cases of very dodgy minhagim, namely women in states of tuma'ah - both involving, inter alia, women not going to shul - one during their periods, and one in the period after giving birth, and the attitudes towards them couldn't be more different. The one is reasonably accepted as something of an acceptable minhag, with some rabbinic blessing, even though the origins are difficult, and it is clear it is solely women generated, while the other gets the full minhag taus, must be stamped out, treatment, at least amongst some. Even though on first glance they would seem to be directly parallel). While you, I thought given that you characterised what I called minhag garua as being minhag chasuv, understood minhag garua as being something done even by non-Jews that had halachic impact, which didn't seem to me to be what was being discussed in the gemora in Pesachim at any point, and hence not the subject of the Ri and Rosh's distinction there. -Micha Regards Chana From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 14:38:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 17:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: free public transport on Shabbos/Yomtov In-Reply-To: <004401d644dc$61126e20$23374a60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004401d644dc$61126e20$23374a60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200702213852.GD25994@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 08:20:35PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > There are a fair number of shops, but there are a fair number of houses too > (and some blocks of flats, definitely majority Jewish). We know people who > live in a couple of the houses right on Golders Green road... A balebatishe comment: It needn't be people right on the road, though. Bus lines are routed to serve neighborhoods. Even if it were a street entirely of shops and other commercial enterprises, a route would take into account any residential areas that are in easy walking distance to any stops. Which is certainly true of what I remember from Golder's Green Road. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless http://www.aishdas.org/asp he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. Author: Widen Your Tent Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 15:23:32 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:23:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 00:29 Zev Sero via Avodah, wrote: > On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking > > and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul > > shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking > > with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. > > Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. > The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the > food gets hot of its own accord. > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and metal heated by a magnetic field? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 15:45:36 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:45:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <20200702141404.GB25994@aishdas.org> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Simon Montagu Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 01:44 Subject: Re: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status To: Micha Berger On Thu, 2 Jul 2020, 17:14 Micha Berger, wrote: > > The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't > apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for > refu'ah beShabbos. > > Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the > gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their > motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking > via fir > Lo p'log is not a universal. There are plenty of cases where hazal and the pos'kim explore in which scenarios gezeirot are or are not relevant (as opposed to implementation details in what is essentially the same situation, such as pianos or violins on shabbat). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 15:58:34 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:58:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais haVaad] Police Protection: Are Officers Liable for Injuries They Inflict? Message-ID: <20200702225834.GA17037@aishdas.org> I think this topic has crossed all of our minds lately. >From https://www.baishavaad.org/police-protection-are-officers-liable-for-injuries-they-inflict/ Tir'u baTov! -Micha The Bais HaVaad Halacha Center Police Protection: Are Officers Liable for Injuries They Inflict? Adapted from the writings of Dayan Yitzhak Grossman July 2, 2020 On June 12, Atlanta Police Department officers Garrett Rolfe and Devin Brosnan were attempting to handcuff Rayshard Brooks and arrest him for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Brooks wrestled with the officers, seized Brosnan's Taser, and attempted to flee. With Rolfe pursuing him, Brooks turned and fired the Taser toward Rolfe. Rolfe then shot at Brooks three times, striking him twice in the back and killing him. Rolfe was subsequently charged with felony murder and ten other offenses. In considering Rolfe's possible culpability for killing Brooks, the first issue is whether the shooting was justified as self-defense. We do not consider here this specific question, but only the general question of the liability of a duly authorized agent of the state for the use of force resulting in injury or death. Agents of the court In the Mishnah, Abba Sha'ul rules that a father who strikes his son, a teacher who disciplines his student, and an agent of the court, who accidentally kill, are not subject to the law of exile (galus).[1] The Tosefta rules similarly with regard to civil liability for nonlethal injury: The father, the teacher, and the agent of the court are all exempt, unless the force used is "more than is appropriate," in which case they are liable.[2] An alternate formulation appears elsewhere in the Tosefta: The agent is exempt if he injures inadvertently (b'shogeg), but liable if he injures deliberately (b'meizid), "out of concern for tikun olam."[3] R' Shimon ben Tzemach Duran explains that these two formulations are equivalent: If the force used is "appropriate" but nevertheless results in injury, the agent is considered shogeg, but if it is "more than is appropriate," he is considered meizid. He also explains that the liability in the case of meizid is in accordance with the normal laws of torts, and the concern for tikun olam is the rationale for the exemption of shogeg, i.e., Chazal absolved a shogeg from liability despite the principle of adam muad l'olam, by which people are usually held liable for torts committed b'shogeg.[4] It would seem that according to this approach, "shogeg" here has its general meaning of an act that while inadvertent, nevertheless has an element of negligence to it, and so would engender liability were it not for the concern for tikun olam, since it would seem absurd for an agent of the court who carried out his duty entirely properly to be liable for its consequences (were it not for tikun olam), any more than the court itself and its agents would be liable as tortfeasors for the very imposition of punishment such as lashes or execution upon a miscreant![5] In apparent contradiction to the assumption of the Tosefta that an agent of the court is not authorized to use more force than necessary to carry out his duty stands a ruling of Rabbeinu Yerucham ben Meshulam, accepted by some poskim, that an agent of the court who strikes the body or damages the property of a recalcitrant person is exempt even if he was able to accomplish his goal by other means.[6] It seems that this opinion understands that the availability of nonviolent means does not automatically render the use of violence "more than is appropriate." Thus in Rabbeinu Yerucham's case, although alternative nonviolent means were available, once the agent chose to utilize violence, the level of force he used was the minimum necessary to accomplish his goal, whereas in the case of the Tosefta, the level of force utilized was gratuitously high. Alternatively, some contemporary writers consider it self-evident that Rabbeinu Yerucham concedes that the authorities have no right to use "excessive" and "unreasonable" force relative to the goal of preserving the rule of law.[7] Perhaps, then, when the Tosefta assigns liability where the force used was "more than is appropriate," it is referring to just such "excessive" and "unreasonable" force. In any event, other poskim disagree with Rabbeinu Yerucham's ruling and maintain that an agent of the court is only exempt from liability for the use of force if he had no other means to achieve his goal.[8] The exemption of an agent of the court only applies provided force was used in order to compel compliance with the court's directives, but not when motivated by anger.[9] Some contemporary writers assume that a police officer would have the same status as the "agent of the court" discussed by Chazal and would therefore be exempt from liability insofar as his use of force was appropriate. __________________________________________________________________ [1]Makkos 2:2. Cf. Rambam and Ra'avad Hilchos Rotzeiach Ushmiras Hanefesh 5:6, and Bnei V'lechem Yehudah, Bnei Shmuel, Gur Aryeh, Hamei'ir La'aretz, Kruv Mimshach, Ma'asei Rokeach, Mirkeves Hamishneh, Ein Tarshish, and Shufrei D'Yaakov ibid.; Shu"t Shevus Yaakov cheilek 3 siman 140; R. Yehuda Zoldan, Tzidkas Yehuda V'Yisrael, siman 6 os 1; R. Moshe Taragin, Shliach Bais Din Sheharag Beshogeg. One version of the Tosefta contains a position contrary to that of Abba Sha'ul; see Or Sameiach Hilchos Rotzeiach 5:6 and Tzidkas Yehuda V'Yisrael ibid. [2]Tosefta Bava Kama 9:3. [3]Ibid. Gittin 3:13. [4]Shu"t Tashbatz cheilek 3 siman 82. [5]This is certainly true according to the poskim that maintain that the principle of adam muad l'olam does not apply to oness gamur (see Tosafos Bava Kama 27b s.v. uShmuel amar; Shulchan Aruch C.M. 378:1-3 and Shach ibid. s.k. 1). [6]Sefer Maysharim Nesiv 31 cheilek 2 p. 92 second column, cited by Sema C.M. siman 8 s.k. 25 and Ba'er Heitev ibid. s.k. 8. [7]Adv. Yaakov Shapiro and Dr. Michael Vigoda, Shimush B'choach al Yedei Hamishtarah, n. 33. [8]Toras Chaim Bava Kama end of daf 28; Shevus Yaakov cheilek 1 siman 180, cited in Pis'chei Teshuvah ibid. s.k. 6; Sha'ar Mishpat ibid. s.k. 2; Aruch Hashulchan ibid. se'if 6; Yeshuos Yisrael ibid. Ein Mishpat s.k. 2 and Chukas Hamishpat s.k. 6. Erech Shai ibid. se'if 5 concludes that the matter is a s'feika d'dina. Cf. Halacha Pesukah ibid. p. 86 n. 214. [9]Shu"t Ra'anach (Yerushalayim 5720) siman 111 p. 475. Cf. Shevus Ya'akov cheilek 3 end of siman 140 and Shimush B'choach al Yedei Hamishtarah. From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 16:02:21 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:02:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200702230221.GA7250@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 01:23:32AM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: >> Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. >> The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the >> food gets hot of its own accord. > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and > metal heated by a magnetic field? I believe Zev is saying that the induction cooker doesn't cause any metal to glow. However, when you cook on an old-school electric stove, the coil will glow. And glowing is included in "eish". (I'm not sure about the last part. I think it would depend on whether causing a gachales shel mateches is bishul or havarah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. http://www.aishdas.org/asp Life is about creating yourself. Author: Widen Your Tent - George Bernard Shaw - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From zev at sero.name Thu Jul 2 17:03:56 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 20:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: On 2/7/20 6:23 pm, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > Glowing hot metal is included in "fire".? Here there is no fire at all. > The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the > food gets hot of its own accord. > > > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and > metal heated by a magnetic field? The pot or pan doesn't get nearly hot enough to qualify as fire. It doesn't have to, since it's heating the food directly, rather than heating a pot sitting on top of it, which will then heat the food it contains. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Thu Jul 2 17:02:12 2020 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 00:02:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Realities of Times Past (Was: Latecomers to shul on Friday night) Message-ID: R?Akiva Miller asks (38/54) a typically thoughtful question about adding Magen Avot on Friday night. The reasoning and realities are difficult to understand, he notes, and so he asks, ?There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better?? I don?t have any answers for him but I have similar questions about reasons given for other changes in halacha. For example, we don?t blow shofar on RH that falls on Shabbat (thus missing out on a Biblical commandment) because of three maybes: (a) maybe someone will be blowing who doesn?t know how to do do properly, (b) maybe that will happen on a Shabbat RH, and (c) maybe that person will carry the shofar in a reshut harabim to an expert for instruction. Well, how often would that occur? Was this common in those days? And if so, why? It?s not common today for shofar blowers to go to experts on RH to give them instruction. And equally difficult fir me to understand, wasn?t there some other way to prevent the triple maybe sin of carrying other than making all the Jewish people for generations on end miss out on a once a year biblical commandment.? Was society so different that this was really an otherwise unmanageable problem at the time the ruling was put into effect? To paraphrase Akiva, there?s something that I'm missing about the realities of that time; can anyone explain the reasoning better? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From marty.bluke at gmail.com Fri Jul 3 00:13:36 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 10:13:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop Message-ID: R? Simon Montagu asked: > That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a > Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for > the gezeira seem to apply.... This would seem to be a classic case of davar shebminyan tzorich minyan acher lhatiro which we don?t have. There are many gezeras that we observe today even though the reason behind the gezera no longer applies. For example, taking medicine on shabbos is prohibited because you may grind the ingredients. In today?s world of pills the reason no longer applies yet most poskim still prohibit taking pills for something like a headache. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:17:50 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 17:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200706211750.GA10250@aishdas.org> Someone pointed me to https://www.torahbase.org/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%A0%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D See section 6. R' Asher Weid isn't comfortable have a nakhri cook for you by microwave. Something I had thought was pretty commonly accepted. In this case, he allws, but only because the situation that required getting a housekeeper to cook is a she'as hadechaq, and because hiring a Jewish housekeeper would be a hotza'ah merubah. Only adding the lack of aish as a yeish le'ayein and is willing to use it as an additional "chazi le'itztarufei". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he http://www.aishdas.org/asp brought an offering. But to bring an offering, Author: Widen Your Tent you must know where to slaughter and what - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 01:31:54 2020 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:31:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Realities of Times Past (Was: Latecomers to shul on Friday night) Message-ID: Fellow Ovedim have (IIRC at the behest of RAM who asked the question) been wondering why Tefillat Me'eyn Sheva' is said on Friday evenings. RJK particularly cited RAM: > "The reasoning and realities are difficult to understand," he notes, " > and so," he asks: "There's something that I'm missing about the > realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they > davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain > the story better?" There may be a clue in an article by Jacob Mann. Jacob Mann was, as far as I can reconstruct, a Pzsworsker Chassid who loved Judaism and learning, but upon landing the USA possibly tragically aligned himself with the wrong crowd. But this is just a reconstruction. For all I know, him publishing a bunch of articles in the Reform"Hebrew Union College Annual" may have been because it was in his eyes the most widespread scholarly publication, one that would afford him the most exposure. Interestingly, he insisted on transliterating Hebrew into Ashkenazi pronunciation, and HUCA agreed. At any rate, he was a pretty interesting historian of liturgy and may have been on to certain things correctly. In an article entitled Changes in the Divine Service of the Synagogue due to Persecution, he brings evidence for several periods of anti Jewish persecutions in which certain prayers or practices were prohibited, giving rise to creative solutions. Though he does not deal with Me'eyn Sheva' (as far as I remember), the setting seems to work well. Perhaps Me'eyn Sheva came from a time when Jews had to pray outside the settlements, because they were praying in hiding, and thus had to watch out for each other's safety. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 03:59:50 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:59:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status Message-ID: Rav Hershel Schachter has a fascinating essay in his Sefer about when we say lo plug by gezeros and when not. It has been a while but I believe he says that gezeros are all lo plug except if the reason was written into the nusach of the gezera. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 13:16:24 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 16:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200707201624.GE25868@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 01:59:50PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Rav Hershel Schachter has a fascinating essay in his Sefer about when we > say lo plug by gezeros and when not. It has been a while but I believe he > says that gezeros are all lo plug except if the reason was written into the > nusach of the gezera. The problem is, that determination is often non-trivial to make. Where is the end-quote -- is the explanation part of the quote of the wording of the gezeira, or the gemara's explanation of its purpose stated and stated after the quote? We discussed this idea many years ago, when I proposed this was the root of the machloqes about basar kafui. Very related is that it is also sometimes unclear when something is a pesaq in existing law, and when a gezeira. If it's a pesaq, then applicability is built in whether or not it's stated. Pesaqim only hold if the situation is materially the same. What the gemara says about putting out a burning house on Shabbos wouldn't apply to a wood-frame house in an urban or most suburban settings because the risk to life is simply different. Like the Peri Chadash vs the Chasam Sofer about chalav yisrael; the PC says CY is a pesaq, so he has little problem saying that CY is moot when there is other disincentive to adulterating the milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness http://www.aishdas.org/asp which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost Author: Widen Your Tent again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Jul 7 14:44:42 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 21:44:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Risk Reward Message-ID: <1594171681704.0f3bd39e3250de82@aishdas.org> A note I wrote To a pulpit rabbi: I strongly support a recent discussion concerning return to synagogue. I do have to say that there's one point that I deeply disagree on. Maybe it's a matter of nuance that cannot be communicated in trying times to the general public. I don't believe that flattening the curve has no halachic import. In fact as a community we are always making this kind of trade off. If not why wouldn't we spend every dollar we have on improving public health. The answer per R' Schachter and R' Weiss is that's the way the world operates. Bottom line risk reward tradeoffs are often very difficult. Personally I'd prefer we be more open and honest about them and have public discussion but realize that may not be practical So what is the halachic philosophy of risk/reward? perhaps a starting point The cohain gadol and the alternates for himself or wife on Yom Kippur? Kt Joel Rich From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 19:15:59 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 22:15:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Francis Collins on Science and Religion Message-ID: <20200708021559.GA27334@aishdas.org> An interview with Dr. Francis Collins (an Obama appointee now most famous for being Dr. Anthony Fauci's boss). https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/anthony-faucis-boss-on-why-things-could-be-much-better-soon.html Three snippets that are on topic for our group, but there is more discussion of G-d there than this: "I was an atheist when I entered medical school. I was a Christian when I left and it was much driven by this experience of trying to integrate the reductionist aspects of science into the much more fundamental issues I saw my patients wrestling with, like is there a God and does God care about me and what happens after I die? "Those are uncomfortable questions for an atheist 23-year-old, but ultimately they became totally compelling and required some investigation and some answers. Ultimately, out of that, it came to me that it makes a lot more sense to believe in God than to deny God's existence. A scientist isn't supposed to make assertions that you would call universal negatives, because you can never have enough evidence to do that, and yet that's what atheism calls you to do. ... "Similarly, the way that some people have caricatured science as a threat to God, that doesn't resemble the science that I'm doing. It's been a terrible, I think, consequence of our last century or so that this polarization has been accepted as inevitable when I see it not at all in that light. There are many interesting scientific questions that tap into the kind of area that you're asking about, like what is the neuroscientific basis of consciousness? What is the neuroscientific basis of a spiritual experience? If there is such a neuroscientific basis, does that make this spiritual experience less meaningful or more so? Those are fun conversations to have." "... What is our future? I don't want to see a future where this science-versus-faith conflict leads to a winner and a loser. If science wins and faith loses, we end up with a purely technological society that has lost its moorings and foundation for morality. I think that could be a very harsh and potentially violent outcome. But I don't want to see a society either where the argument that science is not to be trusted because it doesn't agree with somebody's interpretation of a Bible verse wins out. That forces us back into a circumstance where many of the gifts that God has given us through intellectual curiosity and the tools of science have to be put away. "So I want to see a society that flourishes by bringing these worldviews together by being careful about which worldview is most likely to give you the truth, depending on the question you're asking." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole http://www.aishdas.org/asp heart, your entire soul, and all you own." Author: Widen Your Tent Love is not two who look at each other, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:30:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714183052.GC21268@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:40:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate > dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), > as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will > be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised > (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- > r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? I'm uncomfortable with your formulation, but I think I agree with your point. As microelectronics become more embedded in society, it's harder to consider their use uvda dechol. So pesaqim ought change. In RMF's case.... What changed over time was not whether a given fact was uvda dechol. He assumed that use of a timer would pose mar'is ayin issues, and that metzi'us changed. A close parallel, but not exactly the same. And yes, it could well be the tzibbur who make that point known to the posqim. (Especially today, when the gedolim we look to for pesaq often are men who never left yeshiva life. As opposed to the previous generations when we looked to the town's rav for pesaqim.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward http://www.aishdas.org/asp by patting yourself on the back. Author: Widen Your Tent -Anonymous - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:30:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714183052.GC21268@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:40:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate > dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), > as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will > be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised > (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- > r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? I'm uncomfortable with your formulation, but I think I agree with your point. As microelectronics become more embedded in society, it's harder to consider their use uvda dechol. So pesaqim ought change. In RMF's case.... What changed over time was not whether a given fact was uvda dechol. He assumed that use of a timer would pose mar'is ayin issues, and that metzi'us changed. A close parallel, but not exactly the same. And yes, it could well be the tzibbur who make that point known to the posqim. (Especially today, when the gedolim we look to for pesaq often are men who never left yeshiva life. As opposed to the previous generations when we looked to the town's rav for pesaqim.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward http://www.aishdas.org/asp by patting yourself on the back. Author: Widen Your Tent -Anonymous - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:21:12 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Yehareig velo ya'avor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I posted on this issue here and on another list: >> If a Ben Noach [Noahide, i.e. non-Jew] is being forced to abrogate >> one of his 7 mitzvot... > I received this [from Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter]: >> If you accept the authority of Rambam, this is black-letter law. See Sefer >> Shoftim, Hilkhoth Mlakhim UMilxmotheyhem, Chapter 10, Paragraph 2: "A Ben-Noax >> who is compelled to violate one of his commandments is allowed to do so > Thanks for the cite! If you check out the mishneh lmelech there For those who didn't look, it's at: https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rtype=%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98&mfid=104611&rid=15005 > he refers > to the parshat drachim derech atarim (drasha #2) who makes exactly the > argument I proposed as why a ben noach would be required to give up his > life rather than kill someone. But also says "debishfichus damim mitzvah haben-noach sheyeihareig ve'al ya'avor". By making it about "mai chazis" it isn't about the 7 mitzvos in general, or even the other two mitzvos that for Jews are yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Rather, because the only question is who dies, not the comparative values are life vs obedience. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation http://www.aishdas.org/asp -- just think of an incurable disease such as Author: Widen Your Tent inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:25:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:25:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:38:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger wrote: >> But in general, there is an increasing reluctance to pasqen in >> some circles. Whether Brisker chumeros or the MB's advice to >> either play safe in some places or avoid the question in another. >> So, we're seeing more and more of it. > I spent a couple of minutes trying to think of examples of this phenomenon, > and I ended up agreeing that this *seems* to be more common in hilchos > brachos... > However, in most other areas of halacha, it's not a choice of this or that. > It's a question of issur and heter. (Or of chiyuv and not.) In such cases, > "avoiding the situation" tends to be synonymous with "being machmir".... I would agree for the "defy the question" pesaqim being more common in hilkhos berakhos. But I don't see Brisker chumeros or baal nefesh yachmir being more of a berakhah thing. Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of safeiq would be lehaqeil. My largely implied question was how to save this reluctance to pasqen from accusations of lack of faith in the entire concept of pesaq and deciding halakhah. Nu, so for the Briskers, I takeh think they don't believe that a pesaq settles the din anymore. As the Rambam put it, Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah. But for the CC and the rest of us? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; http://www.aishdas.org/asp Experience comes from bad decisions. Author: Widen Your Tent - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From zev at sero.name Tue Jul 14 12:29:37 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Yehareig velo ya'avor In-Reply-To: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> References: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <27345b4a-f329-cfd4-8b0f-8b8be1147f72@sero.name> >> Thanks for the cite! If you check out the mishneh lmelech there > > For those who didn't look, it's at: > https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rtype=%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98&mfid=104611&rid=15005 > >> he refers >> to the parshat drachim derech atarim (drasha #2) who makes exactly the >> argument I proposed as why a ben noach would be required to give up his >> life rather than kill someone. > > But also says "debishfichus damim mitzvah haben-noach sheyeihareig ve'al > ya'avor". By making it about "mai chazis" it isn't about the 7 mitzvos > in general, or even the other two mitzvos that for Jews are yeihareig > ve'al ya'avor. Rather, because the only question is who dies, not the > comparative values are life vs obedience. Thank you. However if the Rambam agreed with this it's odd that he didn't say so. And the svara against it seems fairly simple: Yisrael are commanded in kiddush haShem; we're expected to sometimes put obedience ahead of our lives. Therefore when considering for which mitzvos we must do so, the svara of "mai chazis" compels us to include this. It wouldn't make sense to say that for AZ we must be moser nefesh, but for shfichas damim we needn't. But for Bnei Noach the whole concept of mesirus nefesh doesn't exist. They are never expected to do that; we have an explicit pasuk that they're even allowed to serve AZ rather than die. So how can we tell them to sacrifice themselves for mai chazis? On the contrary, they will tell you exactly mai chazina -- this is my life and that is his. To *me* my life is more important than his, just as I expect that to *him* his life is more important than mine. Just as I would give my life to save my children, because theirs are more important to me than mine, so I will give your life to save mine, because mine is more important to me than yours. It's only once the principle that there is something higher than survival is established that we can extend it with mai chazis. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Tue Jul 14 12:55:07 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:55:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <722273ba-58af-d192-57ea-032a8f9cd3e5@sero.name> On 14/7/20 2:25 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Nu, so for the Briskers, I takeh think they don't believe that a pesaq > settles the din anymore. As the Rambam put it, Rav Ashi veRavina sof > hora'ah. Or, they believe in psak in principle, but not in their own ability to pasken, and they're not too sure about your ability either, or his or his or his. But I think there's also a good helping of the gemara's statement that a baal nefesh doesn't eat meat on which a psak was required; as the proverb goes, "a shayla macht treif". Only if the heter is found explicitly in the sources, so that no reasoning was needed can one eat the meat without any qualms. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 03:25:38 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 06:25:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue Message-ID: . R" Micha Berger wrote: > Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't > which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because > there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of > safeiq would be lehaqeil. Safeiq "rather than" pesaq?? Can the two be differentiated? Isn't psak *based* on safek, trying to figure out where Truth resides? > My largely implied question was how to save this reluctance to > pasqen from accusations of lack of faith in the entire concept > of pesaq and deciding halakhah. As I see it, it's not that we have a lack of *faith* in psak, but that we're so confused about how it works. And especially, how it works nowadays when there's no Sanhedrin. To me, the classic case in bitul is bitul b'rov. Does the minority really lose its identity to the point that all pieces can be eaten by a single person at one time? Or is it only a procedural psak, such that we are fearful for each item, and they must be shared among several people, or eaten by one person at different times, etc etc. And it carries through to psak too. Can I really ignore the minority opinion? Without a Sanhedrin to actually discuss and vote, how can I be sure that the other camp is wrong? And so, just as we "avoided the issue" by having several people share the probably-kosher items, we also "avoid the issue" in psak by finding a situation where we don't choose between the several opinions. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 15 02:48:25 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:48:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] action or results? Message-ID: There are four identical quadruplets brothers, Robert, Simon, Larry and Judah. Robert , Larry and Simon are all asymptomatic carriers of the corona virus but Judah is not. The local law and rabbinic authorities require wearing a mask when going out in public but none of them do. The four brothers are not clearly identifiable, when seen, as orthodox Jews but are so known by the public. They all go outside to identical public events where their identities are not known. Robert infects a number of people but he's never identified as the source of the infection. Larry infects a number of people and is identified as a source of infection in the media. Judah never infects anybody and neither does Simon. What shows up on each brothers' permanent record card in shamayim? Is it multidimensional? 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 JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 15 02:50:41 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? 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 zev at sero.name Wed Jul 15 07:03:18 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5622a8f8-7434-2f3e-086c-d0052a01ff28@sero.name> On 15/7/20 5:50 am, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required to > give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol > worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching > theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and > not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? I don't believe there is. These three are not worse than other sins. E.g. murder is only an issur hereg, and is therefore *less* severe than any issur skila and sreifa. So the term "Big 3" is a misnomer; they're in the category for being big. And they didn't all get in to the category in the same way. Avoda Zara comes from the pasuk "venikdashti". Murder comes in from the svara of "mai chazis". And all the arayos come in because of the pasuk that compares eshes ish to murder, so they are included in the "mai chazis" even though that svara doesn't apply to them! Which is very strange. Then there are other mitzvos that also *obviously* override pikuach nefesh, so obviously that they don't need to be listed, such as milchemes mitzvah. (For that matter, since one is required to go even to a milchemes hareshus if the king conscripts one, that too must override pikuach nefesh. And obviously war overrides venishmartem.) Bris also involves a certain level of risk, and historically it was just accepted that a certain number of babies will die from it, and that we have to accept this. So to that extent it also overrides pikuach nefesh, until the risk rises high enough to change that. Losing one child obviously increases the probability of there being a genetic defect in the family, and yet it is not enough to cancel future brissen in that family. Only a second loss does that. Then we have a pasuk that earning a living justifies taking certain risks with ones life; while I wouldn't call this overriding pikuach nefesh or venishmartem, it obviously puts a limit on those principles that many people don't consciously acknowledge. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 15:13:54 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200715221354.GF8072@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:50:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required > to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol > worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching > theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and > not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? One is the greatest violation of Torah, one of Avodah, and one of Gemilus Chassadim. AZ as the inverse of Avodah and Murder as the inverse of Gema"ch shouldn't need elaboration. As for arayos... In the Maharal's commentary on that mishnah, he describes the three amudei olam as a relationship with one's soul, with G-d and with other people. Torah perfects the relatiosionship with oneself. Whereas someone who pursues arayos turns that self into a menuval. Torah is about perfection of the mind, middos and the rest of the soul. Arayos is about giving up on all that and just answering to the body. Living cannot be at the expense of an axe to a pillar one's life stands on. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of http://www.aishdas.org/asp greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, Author: Widen Your Tent in fact, of our modesty. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 05:42:49 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 08:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required > to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of > idol worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one > overarching theme that links these three transgressions that explains > why these and not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? If there's an overarching theme, I haven't found it yet. I have tried to find the reason for each of these three, what makes them different than the other 610, and I've come up with very different answers for each of them. If I'm not mistaken, murder is the only one for which the Gemara gives an explicit reason. If my life is at stake, and the only solution is at the cost of someone else's life, who's to say that my blood is redder? Simple math. Or simple logic, your choice. Next is avodah zara. I came up with this answer myself, so I eagerly welcome any comments about it. My logic is like this: An inventive mind can come up with all sorts of justifications for violating mitzvos in extreme circumstances. "Violate this Shabbos so he will keep many other Shabbosos," for example. Eliyahu built a bamah on Har Carmel, because he knew it would lead to Kiddush Hashem. But Avoda Zara is the sort of thing where - by definition - the means NEVER justify the ends. There is NO situation in which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be Kiddush Hashem. It's a contradiction in terms. Even the opportunity to do mitzvos for the rest of my life can't justify an actual Avodah Zara today. (I'm not talking about where someone merely pretends to do Avodah Zara; that's a more complicated topic and might be justified by some poskim in some cases.) But to actually do real Avodah Zara is treason against Hashem and never allowed. That leaves Arayos. This is a very strange halacha, especially to the general culture arounds us, which accepts these acts (when done by consenting adults) as victimless pleasures, not capital crimes. Non-logical chukim. So why is it that we must avoid these acts, even at the cost of our lives? Doesn't make sense. The tentative answer I've come up with is that this halacha is meant to help insure solid family life. Society around us is falling apart, and many people think that one of the causes is that too many children grow up without strong family values. It is merely my guess, but I can't help but suspect that this is why Hashem made Arayos so very very assur, to impress this value upon us. Even if (lo aleinu) a situation actually arises, and a person is tempted to rationalize that he can do this aveirah today and live to do mitzvos tomorrow, it is still not worth it. That's the message of the severity of this halacha. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hanktopas at gmail.com Sun Jul 19 06:59:31 2020 From: hanktopas at gmail.com (Henry Topas) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 09:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: Recently, I have heard of some shuls beginning Shabbat morning davening at Nishmat or even at Shochayn Ad. This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the same Sha'tz conclude what he started? Kol tuv, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 00:59:57 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:59:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan Message-ID: Just catching up and the message from R' Joel Rich on Sun, 24 May 2020 caught my eye. RJJ wrote: > In the case of the woman putting on a tallis without tzitzis- there > was no real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis > - ie fulfil the mitzvah (except her rabbi told her not to), so why > would you be satisfied with second best. I'm not so sure about the "no real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis" part. In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar could cause carrying in a public domain. Along those lines one could argue that a tallis may also cause one to carry in the public domain if not tied properly, or strings break off, etc. Just a thought, - Danny From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Jul 20 07:02:26 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:02:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when > we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed > by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as > the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the > same Sha'tz conclude what he started? See S"A O"C 53:3 (Shatz vs. tzibbur) https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Orach_Chayim.53.3 She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, Joel Rich From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 11:26:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:59:57AM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: > In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. > > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. ... In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! So, I'm not sure why the HM needs to invoke the risk of an aveirah. Lo zakhisi lehavin. And more to our point, the lack of berakhah doesn't seem to me to prove the mitzvah itself should be avoided because it means some risk exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but the lighting of a fire. Author: Widen Your Tent - W.B. Yeats - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From cbkaufman at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 13:58:38 2020 From: cbkaufman at gmail.com (Brent Kaufman) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:58:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 (4) Message-ID: There are actually 4 big ones that one must voluntarily give one's life rather than transgress. A person is obligated to die rather than transgress any mitzvah in the Torah if one is being forced to do so publicly during a time of shmad. The Rambam lists this, but I didn't check before writing this, for its exact reference. chaimbaruch kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 19:12:11 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 22:12:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: . I wrote: > But Avoda Zara is the sort of thing where - by definition - > the means NEVER justify the ends. There is NO situation in > which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be Kiddush > Hashem. It's a contradiction in terms. I made a typing error there. What I had intended to write was: "There is NO situation in which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be *L'Shem Shamayim*. It's a contradiction in terms." It's not difficult to imagine situations (or cite historical incidents) where someone might do an aveirah L'Shem Shamayim. But that's for the other 612. It seems to me categorically impossible for someone to do actual Avoda Zara (as opposed to merely going through the motions, which is also assur, but *possibly* not yehareg v'al yaavor) for L'Shem Shamayim reasons. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 05:41:45 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:41:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: > This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when > we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed > by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as > the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the > same Sha'tz conclude what he started? I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. E.g.: We learned in a Mishna in Brachos that if the Shat"z cannot continue, a substitute continues where he left off. More common: Aveilim often switch Shat"z at Ashrei - the 2nd one saying Kadish Tiskabal (may our prayers be accepted) even though the first one said the actual Amida that this is going on. In your case, both congregants will be saying both opening and closing Brachot - so I'm not even sure what you're asking. Kol Tuv - Danny From doniels at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 05:34:42 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:34:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> References: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB commented on my thought: > In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos > that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To > the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem > in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! That's THIS VERY Rambam. > So, I'm not sure why the HM needs to invoke the risk of an aveirah. Lo > zakhisi lehavin. > > And more to our point, the lack of berakhah doesn't seem to me to prove > the mitzvah itself should be avoided because it means some risk exists. My mistake for getting you mixed up. The HM isn't commenting on Tzitzis - that part is my "chiddush"... that there's a "good reason" why women didn't wear Tzitzis over the generations. The HM was commenting IIUC why the Rambam talks about women wearing Tzitzis but not Tefillin. I can't find the HM on Sefria, or I'd link to it. Kol Tuv - Danny From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Tue Jul 21 12:08:22 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:08:22 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan Message-ID: <000001d65f92$4e243cf0$ea6cb6d0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:59:57AM +0300 RDS wrote: > In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. > > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. And then RMB responded: <> We need to back up here. There is a fundamental machlokus in the gemora between Rabbi Yehuda (supported by Rabbi Meir), and Rabbi Yossi (supported by Rabbi Shimon) as to whether women are permitted to perform mitzvos aseh she hzman grama - from which they are exempt. Rabbi Yossi says "reshus" - ie they are allowed. Rabbi Yehuda says no, it is assur for women to perform mitzvos asseh shehazman grama. And there are two explanations given for Rabbi Yehuda forbidding women performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. The first (eg by Rashi) is of Bal Tosif. That is, if the Torah says women are exempt from performing certain mitzvos, then for them to go ahead and perform them would violate the principle of bal tosif. However, most rishonim argue that bal tosif does not make sense here, and therefore most rishonim, including those who posken like Rabbi Yehuda, do so not under the principle of bal tosif, but under a principle that can be called "halachic counter-pressure". That is, even Rabbi Yehuda did not forbid all women from doing acts that constitute mitzvos (such as sitting in a sukkah on Sukkos, which, if you follow the bal tosif principle would be ossur for a women to do), but only where there are halachic counter-pressures, and the Haagahos Maimoniyos is quoting some of the halachic counter-pressures that the rishonim discuss. As we all know, we posken (both Sephardim (via the Shulchan Aruch) and Ashkenazim (via the Rema)), like Rabbi Yossi, that women *may* perform mitzvos aseh shehazman grama, and this Rambam is one of the bases for the way the Shulchan Aruch poskens. However: a) there are a significant number of rishonim who posken like Rabbi Yehuda; and b)even within Rabbi Yossi, there are those who say that Rabbi Yossi only permits where the halachic counter-pressure is something less than a Torah prohibition. If, like the Rambam, you holds that saying a bracha sheino tzricha is a Torah violation, and you hold according to this view in Rabbi Yossi, you end up with the Rambam's position. If you follow Tosfos (Ri and Rabbanu Tam), who holds that saying a bracha sheino tzricha is merely a rabbinic prohibition, then following Rabbi Yossi t would be pushed aside in the circumstance of a woman performing a mitzvah that is a reshus. So holds the Rema. For various talks I have given on this, I have drawn up the following diagrams - I don't know if they will come out in the digest form, but I think people find them useful to understand some of the complexity. [RMB, is there some way of embedding these in the digest?] If you don't get them, I am happy to email them separately. Bottom line there are a lot of rishonim who did not hold like Rabbi Yossi, and this is reflected in, inter alia, the discussion regarding tzitzis. Because while the Tur, following his father the Rosh and the Rabbanu Tam/Ran happily permit women to make blessings over shofar and lulav, he says in Tur Orech Chaim Hilchot Tzitzit siman 17 ".And the Rambam writes that they may wrap without a blessing, and he is going in his position that explains that women are not able to bless on something from which they are exempt but Rabbanu Tam writes that they are able to bless even though they are exempt and it is better that they do not bless ..". And the Bach, picking up on this seeming contradiction says (Bach Orech Chaim Siman 17) On "And it is better that they do not bless"; There is to ask from that which he writes in siman 589 in connection with shofar that even though women are exempt they are able to blow and to bless and one should not protest. And it seems to me that it seems from here that in connection with tzitzis that it is not the custom for women to wear, and to bless, if so if a woman comes to ask ab initio if it is permitted to dress in tzitzis and to bless he should say to her that she should not bless because it is better that they should not bless given the disagreement of our rabbis but with shofar where they are already accustomed to blow and to bless they do not protest since they have on whom to rely but if they come to ask ab initio also with shofar you should say to them that they should not bless and we should rely on what was written here regarding tzitzis and this is the law [also] regarding shofar." But, it seems to me, to understand this portion, it is necessary to fully understand the depth of rishonic opposition to women performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. The Hagahios Maymoniyos was one of a number of Ashkenazi rishonim who disagreed with Rabbanu Tam/Ri/Ran and held one should posken like Rabbi Yehuda. Regards Chana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 19942 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.png Type: image/png Size: 21255 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.png Type: image/png Size: 20358 bytes Desc: not available URL: From simon.montagu at mail.gmail.com Tue Jul 21 03:40:33 2020 From: simon.montagu at mail.gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:40:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:59 PM Danny Schoemann wrote: > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. What mitzva couldn't potentially cause an aveira, including ones which women do aliba dekhulei alma? Bad timing in candle-lighting could cause hillul shabbat. On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 9:34 PM Micha Berger wrote: > In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos > that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To > the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem > in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! As I may have noted before, the general trend among Sepharadi aharonim is to follow RT against the SA and Rambam, and say that women at least can, and IIIRC davka _should_ make berachot on these mitzvot. ROY, kedarko bakodesh, insists on following Maran. From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 22 02:56:47 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:56:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?God=92s_existence?= Message-ID: Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all. I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience. It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place I?m not sure that came out as clearly as I might?ve liked but I hope you get the general idea. Thoughts? She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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 bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 22 12:57:46 2020 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:57:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A couple of points relevant to the 'big 3'. Firstly, as has been noted, they are not the only situations of yeihareig v'al yaavor. In addition to the situation of sha'as ha'shmad, the yerushalmi notes that mitzvos bein adam l'chaveiro are also YVAY. Like theft. And I believe we pasken that way. BUT that's not to diminish their uniqueness as YVAY mitzvos. They are mentioned in targum yonasan as a discrete set of YVAY mitzvos, I noticed in the last couple of weeks while doing chad targum. Although I couldn't find it again when I looked. That does mean the derivation in the Bavli is way after the din was already known, by a few hundred years at the least. And points to a much more them being a much more fundamental set of 3 with an early origin in halacha. In response to RZS's point about there being no obvious connection between them, that may well be exactly because they represent the extremes of three different branches of avoda, per the Maharal, and their only connection being that they are all archetypes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 23 08:21:33 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:21:33 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: <002001d66104$f2fb7ea0$d8f27be0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RAM wrote: In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this is the one I want to ask about.) > The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation of > Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana (danger). > Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the Mishnah, shuls > were located outside of the cities where it was not safe to be alone > at night. The Rabbis were concerned that people who came late to shul > might be left alone while finishing to daven. To give latecomers a > chance to catch up and finish davening with everyone else, Chazal > extended the davening by adding Mei'ein Sheva. <> And RAF suggested: <> However it seems to me that this does not answer RAM's question, as the point RAM makes is that Me'en Sheva is a very short additional prayer, and doesn't seem to make much difference one way or the other. Can I make a different suggestion (but again only a suggestion). I have been looking at something called Teshuvat HaGeonim HaChadashot, which, according to Bar Ilan (which is where I sourced it) was published by Simcha Emanuel in Jerusalem, 1995, from a manuscript in the Baron Gunzberg library includes previously unpublished geonic responsa, as well as the writings of early proven?al scholars. In it, in a discussion on the nature of kaddish found at siman 35, the presumably Gaonic author explains the locations of all the kaddishim and after explaining where they are in relation to Shachrit and Mincha (and why) he says ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? +?' ????? ??, ?+ ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? [???] ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??[?]? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????. " And after the blessings of reciting the shema of arvit because the prayer of arvit is reshut [Brachot 27b] and perhaps a person will go out from the synagogue after they finish the blessings of emet v?emunah and will not pray there with ten, and it will be that he will go out without kaddish." That is, there was a genuine concern that because arvit was reshut, people might come to say shema together, and then leave, hence the kaddish after shema and before shmonei esrei of arvit. Now, if that was a genuine concern, then maybe that also explains me'in sheva (especially if you understand me'in sheva as requiring, or at least being ideally, said with the community as a whole). Maybe the point is that a latecomer, given that arvit is reshut, was likely simply to say shema and its blessings and not bother to say shmone esrei at all but simply walk out. However with the incentive of saying me'in sheva together with the rest of the congregation, and with other people prepared to wait for him so that the me'en sheva would be communal, he would actually daven shmonei esrei in the presence of the minyan, so that he could then say me'en sheva with it. >Akiva Miller Kind regards Chana From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 23 09:34:09 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:34:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: <003001d6610f$17ad5ed0$47081c70$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: <> I should have pointed out that this particular teshuva was signed by Rav Avraham ben Rav Yitzchak - and given that he references "a few Geonim" and "other Geonim", later in the piece, it is more likely to be someone like Abraham ben Isaac de Narbonne (1110-1179), so more of a Rishon than a Gaon, despite the name of the compilation. Kind regards Chana From wolberg at yebo.co.za Sun Jul 26 09:36:50 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 18:36:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan 32:76 Message-ID: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> [AhS Yomi for yesterday covered OC 32:73-79. https://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi -mi] Loved the line: ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? -- ??? ??? ????? ???? ???. [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." -mi] Any comment on it? From zev at sero.name Sun Jul 26 16:10:19 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:10:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan 32:76 In-Reply-To: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> References: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> Message-ID: <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> On 26/7/20 12:36 pm, wolberg--- via Avodah wrote: > [AhS Yomi for yesterday covered OC 32:73-79. https://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi > -mi] > > Loved the line: ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? -- ??? ??? ????? ???? ???. > [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- > ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. > > [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts > about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." > -mi] > > Any comment on it? I think "yeseros" here means "superfluous", rather than merely "additional". Of course that begs the question, but I think that in general it's a statement of principle, not a rule for practice, though in this instance the AhS gives his opinion on what is superfluous. (I'd also translate "ein daas chachomim nocha meihem" less literally, as "Torah authorities do not approve of them", or even, riskily, "Daas Torah does not approve of them".) -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:50:00 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daas Chachamim Noachah Heimenu In-Reply-To: <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> References: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200727105000.GA9656@aishdas.org> In translating a Hebrew quote posted to the list, I wrote: >> [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- >> ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. >> >> [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts >> about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." >> -mi] On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 07:10:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > (I'd also translate "ein daas chachomim nocha meihem" less literally, as > "Torah authorities do not approve of them", or even, riskily, "Daas Torah > does not approve of them".) I was always taught something along the lines of your first version. I think it was R Yaakov Haber that I heard this from, but the idiom could equally have been intended to me something more like (loosely) "... isn't thinking with daas Torah". I found the argument compelling enough to try to offer both translations. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From driceman at optimum.net Mon Jul 27 07:36:27 2020 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?God=E2=80=99s_existence?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> RJR: > > Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all. > I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah > We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience. > > It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al > > In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place I haven?t read RAL?s essay (link?), but doesn?t RYhL use this idea at the beginning of the Kuzari, a generation before the Rambam? David Riceman From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Jul 27 09:04:15 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:04:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?God=E2=80=99s_existence?= In-Reply-To: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> References: , <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> Message-ID: <1E4BB098-3996-4C02-9BE1-6CA8B3672151@Segalco.com> I haven?t read RAL?s essay (link?), https://www.etzion.org.il/en/source-faith-faith-itself 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:14:27 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:14:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727201427.GC12492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 06:25:38AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R" Micha Berger wrote: >> Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't >> which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because >> there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of >> safeiq would be lehaqeil. > Safeiq "rather than" pesaq?? Can the two be differentiated? Isn't psak > *based* on safek, trying to figure out where Truth resides? Not safeiq rather than pesaq, "rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq". More reliance on safeiq deOraisa lehachmir, safeiq derabbanan lequlah -- unless efshar levareir / it's easy enough to be machmir. Of course, a baal nefesh may have a different definition of "easy enough". As opposed to looking to which shitah is stated by the gadol bekhochmah uveminyan (minyan rabbanim, rav with bigger following [looking at the Rambam or the Rosh...]), the logic of the sevara behind each possible pesaq, looking to see which pesaq was apparently accepted for how long and how broadly, hefsed meruba, kavod haberios... You know, the rules of pesaq. These latter kind of rules tend to be invoked less often than in the past. I think it comes from the Gra's position on the comparative unreality of pesaq after Rav Ashi and Ravina, taking the Rambam's "sof hora'ah" quite literally. Picked up by the Soloveitchiks, and with the popularity of Brisk among those who pasqen today... Add to that the whole concept of lomdus. Whether Brisker or other derakhim. When you value sevara much more than the other factors posqim have to balance, and you learn how to explain the sevara of all sides of a machloqes... There are fewer times the remaining rules of pesaq rise to the level of giving a clear answer. My latter two paragraphs feed into: > As I see it, it's not that we have a lack of *faith* in psak, but that > we're so confused about how it works. And especially, how it works nowadays > when there's no Sanhedrin. But we seem to disagree mostly on description rather than content: > And it carries through to psak too. Can I really ignore the minority > opinion? Without a Sanhedrin to actually discuss and vote, how can I be > sure that the other camp is wrong? ... "How can I be sure" IS a lack of faith in our ability to pasqen, as I would use the terms. Maybe the insecurity comes from a lack of surity we know how to do it right. I would still call it a lack of faith. If you don't think pesaq can be done the way the Rif, the Rambam, the Tur, the SA, the Levush, etc... did, that their precedent doesn't tell you how to decide which of the eilu va'eilu should become halakhah lemaaseh, that lack of faith in how to do pesaq has scary implications. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:19:21 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:19:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] action or results? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727201921.GD12492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:48:25AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > There are four identical quadruplets brothers, Robert, Simon, Larry and > Judah. Robert , Larry and Simon are all asymptomatic carriers of the > corona virus but Judah is not... > They all go outside to identical public events where their identities are > not known. Robert infects... > What shows up on each brothers' permanent record card in shamayim? Is > it multidimensional? Rachmana liba ba'i. Their records show each one's lack of concern for other's safety. Consequences, if they are correlated at all and some other aspect of hashgachah doesn't overwhelm this rule, megalgelim chov al yedei chayav. Which implies that who gets whom sick would at most be *indicative* of guilt for this or other deeds, not the actual thing he is guilty of. A person isn't judged for the results of their actions, or even for their actions themselves. (So, I'm denying both sides of the question in the subject line.) A person is judged "ba'asher hu sham" -- what kind of changes those decisions and actions made in themselves. I would take it for granted it's multidimensional. The person's "permanent record card" is their own soul. And the effects of their actions can improve one thing about the soul while damaging something else about it. A comparatively easy example is tact. a person can make a person that makes them more truthful, but gains that Emes at the expense of their drive for Shalom. And even without the previous paragraphs, Hashem isn't a Vatra -- the person will get the Tov that a more Emesdik soul has a beis qibbul for, and get less of the Tov that comes with losing some passion for Shalom. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:00:57 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727210057.GF12492@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: >> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when >> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed >> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as >> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the >> same Sha'tz conclude what he started? > I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. I called it an office, not the occupent. But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same idea. I have a theory why: I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a *shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:54:22 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:54:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] God's existence In-Reply-To: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> References: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20200727205422.GE12492@aishdas.org> RDR mentioned the Kuzari before I found the time to reply. I think what changed was in the discipline of philosophy. In the days of the rishonim, Philosophy was itself a kind of religion. Look at the opening paragraphs of ch. 1 of the Kuzari -- the king's survey includes a Philosopher (1:1), a Muslim, a Christian, and then the chaver. A Jewish Philosopher was a Scholasticist. Such that Rihal, even though the Kuzari is a book of philosophy as we now use the term, saw himself as anti-Philosophy. Then came the scientific method and people realizing the power and limitations of testing things empirically. The tensions between the Empiricists, who trusted these methods, and the Idealists, who wanted all knowledge to be as sound as Math, coming from self-evident postulates. And then the Kantian Revolution through to Existentialism and now Post-Modernism, etc... Philosophy less based on a confidence of being able to prove what's out there and more focused on describing the world as experienced. I argued here a few years back that this is what drove the popularity of universal hashgachah peratis. It's less a break from how rishonim understood HP than looking at a different topic. To the rishonim, a discussion of HP is all about its contrast to nature, randomness, bechirah chofshi, etc... Nowadays, the discussion of HP is about what it is we have bitachon in, how much hishatadlus do we need to invest given that what happens is decided by hashgachah... R Yehudah haLevi had a lack of faith in the idea that we can decisively prove that's really out there. That's for Greeks, who lack the more sure source of data -- mesorah. (1:13, 1:63) That mesorah part isn't very Modern in terms of the discipline of philosophy, but not believing we can ever really prove anything... Well, take this quote from 1:13: "Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved." Sounds downright Post-Modern! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Jul 28 19:19:28 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 22:19:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why did Chazal cancel shiva bc of Yom tov Message-ID: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> Many have recently written how they have missed the full traditional comforting process of shiva due to corona restrictions. That has reawakened in me the question of why did Chazal cancel shiva because of Yom tov? If the catharsis and process of shiva is so comforting and desirable for mourners, why did they take that away because of YT and not simply postpone till after YT. It's hard to say that after YT the shiva experience w be no longer necessary or needed. I saw someone suggest that "The souls of those who passed away now with abbreviated burials and shivas were so pure they ascended directly to heaven and did not require traditional mourning rituals." That is hard to hear because shiva (and YT cancelling shiva) is a rabbinic creation. Suggestions? Mordechai Cohen macohen613 at gmail.com From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 29 03:10:38 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:10:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why did Chazal cancel shiva bc of Yom tov In-Reply-To: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> References: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: That has reawakened in me the question of why did Chazal cancel shiva because of Yom tov? ====================================== As one who sat shiva at the cemetery on erev Pesach, I tried to keep in mind R'YBS's insight into true simcha as being lfnai hashem (which is what we're supposed to be on shalosh regalim). Seeing it through HKB"H's eyes it's all good (we are human and so don't experience it as such). So: She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, which will allow us all to see more clearly 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 micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:37 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 11:02:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Crazy Snakes and Dogs Message-ID: <20200730150237.GA14405@aishdas.org> We repeatedly discussed RYBS's statement that toothpaste is not ra'ui la'akhilas kelev and therefore doesn't need a hekhsher to be KLP. Not where I intended to go, but I should note that we never discussed the actual core issue -- the limits of the principle of achshevei. Since toothpaste is flavored, one could argue it does apply. RMF (IG OC 2:92), ROY (YD 2:60), the Tzitz Eliezer (10:25), says it does not apply when the flavored item isn't being eaten for the sake of the flavor. Excluding medicine -- and the same argument applies to toothpaste. The CI (OC 116:8) limits achshevei to spoiled chameitz, and not to mixtures containing chameitz. The "only" machmir about applying achshevei to medicines that I know of is the She'agas Aryeh (75). Now, back to the topic I did intent to post about.... So, the story goes (version taken from R Chaim Jachter at https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/cosmetics-and-toiletries-for-pesach-part-three-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter ): A charming anecdote that occurred in Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's Shiur at Yeshiva University in the 1970's (reported by Rav Yosef Adler and many others) is often cited in support of the common practice to be lenient. The Rav stated in Shiur that toothpaste is not Ra'ui Liachilat Kelev (unfit for canine consumption) and thus one is permitted to consume it on Pesach even if it contains Chametz. The next day in Shiur a student raised his hand and explained that he conducted an "experiment" the night before. He related that he placed toothpaste in his dog's feeding bowl to see if his dog would eat it -- and indeed, the dog ate the toothpaste!! Rav Soloveitchik simply responded, "Your dog is crazy." This story illustrates the ruling that we cited last week from Rav Soloveitchik that the standards of edibility are not determined by aberrant behavior. R Pesach Sommer recently found Tosefta Terumos 7:13, which is more famously available on Chullin 49b. It /has/ to be what RYBS was thinking of. The gemara says: Detanya: 5 [liquids] do not have [the prohibition] of gilui: brine, vinegar, oil, honey and fish gravy. Rabbi Shimon says: I saw a snake drink fish brine in Tzidon! They said to him: That [snake] was a shetaya, and one doesn't bring a proof from shotim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From hanktopas at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 20:29:43 2020 From: hanktopas at gmail.com (Henry Topas) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 23:29:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: >> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when >> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed >> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as >> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the >> same Sha'tz conclude what he started? > I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. I called it an office, not the occupent. But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same idea. I have a theory why: I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a *shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post! -Micha Shavua Tov, Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue for Kaddish Shalem? Thank you and Kol Tuv, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 02:36:36 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 12:36:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Henry Topas wrote: > > Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach > of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for > Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or > officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that > reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue > for Kaddish Shalem? What you describe is nothing I've found in the written Poskim. Where I grew up (various Yekkishe Kehiloth) the Ovel was "off the hook" when Hallel was recited. I see this being done in Yeshivishe minyonim, seemingly to "prevent" the Ovel from being Shatz for Hallel. (Also not recorded, AFAIK, except during Shiva.) So, my guess is, that since the Ovel wants to say as many Kadieshim as possible he "gets back the Omud" after Hallel - giving him one more Kaddish. This has no bearing on our discussion, it's a question (and answer) on a recent "Minhag/Hanhogo". Kol Tuv - Danny From emteitz at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 14:06:35 2020 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 17:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: Henry Topas wrote: However one looks at the office of shat"z, there is a difference between chazaras hashat"z and the rest of davening. For everything else, he is essentially a pacer, keeping everyone at the same point in davening, and the leader, in terms of kaddish and borchu. For the amidah, he is definitely a shaliach, whose role it is to be motzi those who cannot themselves daven. It would be possible theoretically not to have a shat"z, having all daven together, and then having one person who, at the appropriate times, would say kaddish and borchu. Chazaras hashat"z, however, must obviously have a shat"z. On days when Hallel is said, it is not a part of chazaras hashat"z; it is, in essence said *during *the chazara, after which the chazara is completed by saying kaddish shalem, which *is* a part of the chazara. (Hallel is in the same category as slichos on fast days, which was originally said during the shat"z's saying the bracha of Slach lanu. Then, too, I believe that someone other than the shat'"z could have led the slichos while the shat"z remained at the amud.) That the aveil should not lead Hallel, but should return for the kaddish because it is a part of the Amidah, is spelled out in the Mishna Brura (581:7). This leads to questioning the practice, when there is more than one aveil, of switching ba'alei tfila at Ashrei-Uva l'Tzion. There are some who object to the practice for that very reason, but apparently it is in the same category as allowing kaddish to be said by more than one person at a time: a concession to darkei shalom in a highly emotional setting. That the aveil not lead Hallel is the opinion of the overwhelming majority. The Mishna Brura loc.cit. brings the apparent opinion of the GR"A who goes even further, that the aveil not lead the entire Shacharis. The MB also cites, in the Biur Halacha in Siman 132, that there are those who bar the aveil from the amud on any day, other than erev Yom Kippur, that Lamnatzeiach is not said -- and does not limit it just to Shacharis on those days. (This is the minhag in my community.) Incidentally, in parts of Europe and in some shuls in EY, there is no shat"z for psukei d'zimra. The amud is unmanned until Yishtabach. If no one need be there, then certainly where there is one, there is no problem in replacing him for Yishtabach. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolberg at yebo.co.za Wed Aug 5 08:00:26 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 17:00:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Censorship in Aruch HaShulchan Message-ID: <014701d66b39$296ebf40$7c4c3dc0$@yebo.co.za> In 39:3, the AH writes: ger (beyamim kadmonim). This was obviously added for the gov censor, similar to Aruch HaShulchan ChM 388:7. Why do we not find the same in MB? Actually, AH OC was written after the same section in MB. Was the political climate in Novardok and Radin so different? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 10 00:52:25 2020 From: eliturkel at mail.gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:52:25 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potato chips and french fries Message-ID: A nice article on the various opinions of bishul akum for french fries and potato chips https://vosizneias.com/2020/08/10/chareidi-potato-chips-versus-regular-chips/ -- Eli Turkel From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 13:42:35 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:42:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Chaim Brisker on his 102nd Yahrzeit Message-ID: <20200811204234.GA9159@aishdas.org> R Elinatan Kupferburg posted this today on Facebook, lekhavod RCB's 102nd yahrzeit (21 Av). Translitarations mine, "q"s and all. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Today is the yahrzeit of [Maran shel kol Benei Yisrael, Rabbeinu Chaim haLevi,] R. Chaim Soloveitchik. It is far beyond this post, or this site, to capture any of the towering significance of Rabbeinu. For that, there's only one thing to do. You have to learn R. Chaim. You sit for hours poring over a sugya without R. Chaim, only to open the sefer and have R. Chaim, with his penetrating, elegant brilliance guide you through the depths of the sea of Talmud. It's as if you were overhearing snippets of a conversation without knowing the topic and then someone revealed it to you and now everything you heard suddenly falls into place. But I do want to make a couple of points about R. Chaim's legacy. Perhaps the most common metonym used to describe or exemplify what is referred to as "the Brisker method," is the cheftza/gavra distinction, often compared to the in rem/in personam legal distinction, though the two are not entirely analogous. It's part of a broader tendency to describe or teach "the Brisker method" by means of a few templatic distinctions: internal/external, intrinsic/accidental, action/result and so on, and has recently been reinforced by books or pamphlets which attempt to do the same. Unfortunately, not only are these gross simplifications and reductions, they entirely obscure what R. Chaim was actually doing, replace it with a different method of study (albeit one that is more prominent in some of his students, notably R. Elchonon Wasserman) and thereby miss his genius. The halakhic discourse, the lomdus, that pervades the Brisk Yeshiva that grew out of the study group around his son R. Velvel (the Brisker Rav) or the other yeshivas it birthed (including BMG), is dissimilar to this perception. 1. The words [cheftza] and [gavra] do not ever appear anywhere in the same piece in [Chiddushei Rabbeinu Chaim haLevi]!! Yes, really. (Except once in [Mekhilah 22:17,] when [gavra] is a quote from the Gemara, i.e. [hahu gavra]). There's a very good reason for that. Because making templatic distinctions is entirely different than what R. Chaim was doing. R. Chaim was elucidating the concepts that underlie and inform halakhic discourse. What is nature of a legal document? What type of obligation is the command is rid chametz? How does a blemish render an animal unfit for sacrifice? Under which mitzva is this prohibition included? R. Chaim's success is defined by precision of conceptual description, which is opposed to templatic rigidity. The only time that [gavra / cheftza] is actually widely used is in Nedarim 2b, in the distinction between vows and oaths, since there the distinction literally is the locus of the prohibition (vows designate an object as forbidden, oaths compel a person to act in a certain way). Often his discussion is not remotely similar to any of the popular "chakiras." For example, the section of the MT that gets the most attention in R. Chaim is the recondite [Hilkhos Tum'as Meis,] in which the pedestrian templates fail. Distinction is a helpful tool in the art of clarity and the halakhic world is composed of human agents and non-human objects, so parts of his discourse may approximate the infamous [gavra / cheftza] but it is by no means central or representative. To be fair, the templatic perception captures certain aspects of some of his chiddushim, and it does communicate the notion of underlying dyadic conceptual distinctions, but I wonder about its ultimate efficacy. 2. The distinctions that approximate [gavra / cheftza] are much older than R. Chaim. Just to give a few examples: - Rivash (Shut 98) extends the gemara's analysis in Nedarim to all prohibitions. - Rid (Eiruvin 48a) uses it describe the prohibition of transporting an object 4 amos in the public domain on Shabbos. - Chasam Sofer (Chullin 115b) uses it to distinguish different types of prohibitions. - Beis Halevi (Shut 3:51 - R. Chaim's father) uses it to explain the nature of the mitzva to eat korbanos. In a broader sense, this type of analysis can be found most acutely in (to give a few examples, moving backwords) Minchas Chinuch, R. Akiva Eiger, the works of R. Aryeh Leib Heller and R. Yaakov Lorberbaum, Peri Megadim, and, most strikingly, by R. Judah Rosanes, whose [Mishneh laMelekh] and [Parashas Derakhim,] two centuries ahead of their time, prefigured much of the Brisker Torah. Of course, the Gemara and Rishonim (Rashi and Meiri come to mind) are not absent of this lomdus either. A recent terminological case from Daf Yomi: take the discussion about perforating an old hole in a wine barrel on Shabbos 146b, where Rashi describes the halakhic crux as whether or not [paqa sheim 'pesach' mineih.] 3. R. Chaim did a lot of things. - He tightened a terminology. - He sharpened the analysis of halakhic concepts. - He displayed a new way of visualizing a sugya and working through it. - He identified the conceptual systematization that forms the substructure of the Mishneh Torah. - He developed a proto-philosophy of halakhic hermeneutics. - He opened the door for gaonim like R. Shimon Shkop to take analysis in a different direction. - By shifting the backdrop from practical halakha to halakha itself, he enabled us to see halakhic concepts not only as useful for determining practice, but as a way through which to view and interact with the world. Each of these deserves a sustained, independent analysis to identify the existing terminologies and approaches that R. Chaim drew on, and the extent of his own innovative prowess. Most powerfully though, he forever changed the halakhic consciousness. Conceptual analysis is now an inexorable part of the talmudic arsenal. Any advanced student of traditional Gemara who sits down to learn has been sensitized to the possibility of a conceptual distinction at play, even if they have no intention of using what they consider "the Brisker method." For some, R. Chaim's thought is so overwhelming that one can never look at Gemara differently again. But I might venture to say that its power lies in the recognition that even if someone does not walk down the path R. Chaim cleared, then that is precisely what they are doing: not learning like R. Chaim. R. Chaim fundamentally defined the contours of halakhic thought, and we are all in his debt. [Ki gadol sheim avinu beYisrael, ve'or Toraso male'ah teiveil -- misof ha'olam ad sofo mamash, umi zeh milomedei Sorah bedoreinu asher lo zarach alav or shimsho venogah Soraso.] From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Aug 11 14:37:14 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:37:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin Message-ID: If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? 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 zev at sero.name Wed Aug 12 08:07:36 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:07:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/8/20 5:37 pm, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another?s birchat hanehenin > and then did not eat, is it a bracha l?vatala for him? I don't see how it can be. The bracha had effect for the person who said it, so it was not wasted. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:23:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:23:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200812202354.GA10738@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 09:37:14PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin > and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? Berakhah levatalah sounds like a description of the "cheftza" of the berakhah. Not gavra-specific. And what would be levatalah, the mevoreikh's kavvanah to be motzi him? Safeiq berakhos lehaqeil is sometimes explained as safeiq deOraisa lechumerah where the deOraisa is sheim Hashem lashav. Along those lines, one could theorize that as long as the sheim wasn't said lashav, it's not a berakhah levatalah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals http://www.aishdas.org/asp is not as important as Author: Widen Your Tent what you become by achieving your goals. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Henry David Thoreau From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Sun Aug 16 08:51:59 2020 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 11:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Business with an Akum Message-ID: One is not permitted to do any kind of business with an Akum (idol-worshipper) on the day of their festival (nor 3 days prior in the Land of Israel) - Rambam Hil. Avodah Zara Ch. 9, Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 148.1. Question - Today, if I know a shop owner is a religious Xian, am I allowed to shop there on Sunday? Or if I know he is a religious Hindu, do I need to mark my calendar with all of the Hindu festivals and avoid his shop on those days? What about a traditional Chinese person on Chinese New Year? Or a Catholic on All Souls Day? If so, is there any halachic literature that lists all of the dates currently forbidden? (I?m also not allowed to sell to him on his holidays, and if I do (in error), I?m not allowed to enjoy the profits of that sale.) Alexander Seinfeld From joelirarich at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 03:47:26 2020 From: joelirarich at gmail.com (Joel Rich) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 06:47:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat hamazon Message-ID: <8FD081BF-3F42-460C-BE16-588F69071B09@gmail.com> A group of people are having Shabbos meal together in the dining room. They all get up to clear the main course dishes and bring them into the kitchen. The dessert flatware and glasses remain on the table Must they say birchat hamazon immediately upon return to the table? Kt Joel rich From micha at aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 09:00:38 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 12:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re'eih vs Shema Message-ID: <20200816160038.GA25978@aishdas.org> Because we say the words from Va'eschanan multiple times a day, I have heard (pun intended, sadly) a lot about shema when it means something more than the stimulation of neurons in my inner ear. Like the English word "listen", "shema" connotes paying attention, obeying ("eiqev asher shamata beQoli"), etc... So, what do we get from the use of "re'eih", as in the title of this week's parashah? In the past couple of days, I cam up with a theory about the difference between shemi'ah and re'iyah, but want to vet it with the chevrah. Shema introduces a theological fact we can only accept in the abstract. We don't even fully understand how One, Indivisible and Unique Hashem is. We are told to accept ol malkhus Shamayim on this basis, but the fact itself is one we can apprehend, not experience. Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite different than an abstract truth. (This seems to be consistent with "ein domeh shemi'ah lere'iyah". "Re'iyah" is something I can know first-hand.) Ta chazi in the bavli seems to also fit this pattern: Berakhos 58a: Rav Sheishes says to a min, "ta chazi" that I am brighter than you, proceding to show he figured out when the king would come. But then, the point was made at the beginning ot the story that R Sheishes was blind, so ht emay have been using the phrase pointed. Eiruvin 6b: ta chazi that the gates of Neharda'ah couldn't be locked. (And thus Shemu'el doesn't require they be locked in order to permit carrying.) Etc... All cases of "go and check for yourself". Nothing at all like "ta shema", which introduces learning a teaching. And of course "puq chazi". But in the Yerushalmi and the Zohar, "ta chazi" is used the way "ta shema" is in Bavel. So, maybe I am just reading too much into Bavli idiom. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a http://www.aishdas.org/asp person is to remain asleep and untamed." Author: Widen Your Tent - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From kbloom at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 14:30:40 2020 From: kbloom at gmail.com (Ken Bloom) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:30:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? Message-ID: Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Aug 17 15:37:49 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 22:37:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Dialectics? Message-ID: An important caveat (IMHO) from R' A Lebowitz to a number of shiurim from diverse speakers: Me-....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y, and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y? R' AL-I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just a helpful way to contextualize the issues I'm still thinking there's another paradigm shift coming, interested in hearing from others. 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 doniels at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 04:55:45 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:55:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > From: "Rich, Joel" > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3 (excuse the Hebrew for the ????? crowd) - translation from Sefaria (after removing a Chumra not in the original): ????? ????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ?????????, ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ?????????????, ???? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???????. "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi shebeirach [a blessing for those who fast on these days] and you intended to fast, this is sufficient, and no other form of acceptance is needed. " ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query. Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of getting the best of both worlds. Kol Tuv - Danny From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Aug 18 05:43:47 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:43:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query. Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of getting the best of both worlds. ============================================== When I learned this with my chavruta a few months back my comment was - I'd love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - machshava balma (random thought?) which has no halachic significance, amira (specific oral articulation) which is completely binding and amen/specific machshava(really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat indeterminate (not welcome in a brisker world?) 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 doniels at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 05:03:54 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:03:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Re'eih vs Shema In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMB reminded me of a vort I heard and said over at this week's Shabbos table. The opening word of the Sedra - Re'eih - is seemingly superfluous. "I present you today with [the ability to choose between] blessing or curse". What does "Look! I present you...." add? The answer was exactly as RMB proposed: > Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the > world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite > different than an abstract truth. We need to look around and see how choice and its consequences are built into the creation. Kol Tuv - Danny From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Aug 18 05:54:11 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 08:54:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. looking for sources and current custom Message-ID: <015401d6755e$aba2ff10$02e8fd30$@touchlogic.com> #! ... May a women uncover her hair in private? Halachah addresses public, semipublic, and private settings: Public: The Torah states that a woman must completely cover her hair in a public place. Some opinions state that under a tefach (a handbreadth, about three inches total) of hair may show. Semipublic: In a semipublic place, one opinion states that even if men are not usually found there, a married woman must cover her hair. When a woman covers her hair, this brings much blessing into the home Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory...." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required." Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? #2 https://www.yoatzot.org/questions-and-answers/1910/ Question: Does a woman have to cover her hair in front of her brothers? Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the presence of your father, husband and son. Where it is customary and not considered offensive, a woman may uncover her hair in front of her brother in the privacy of her own home. Is this leniency known/relied upon? Is this what people are doing out there today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 17:51:37 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:51:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200819005137.GB6547@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 02:55:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote: > I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3... > "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday > following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi > shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient... > "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you > may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." > This last line is -- in my mind -- parallel to your query. > Seems that answering Amen -- even with intention -- is one way of > getting the best of both worlds. I think the best of both worlds may only because you said amein to blessing the fasters, and not "me too" to someone's pledge to fast. There is mental acceptance during a related verbal act. Not a verbal acceptance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but the lighting of a fire. Author: Widen Your Tent - W.B. Yeats - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 17:48:02 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:48:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Dialectics? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200819004802.GA6547@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:37:49PM +0000, Joel Rich wrote: > Me- >> ....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I >> just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y, >> and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean >> choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y? > R' AL[ebowitz]- >> I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just >> a helpful way to contextualize the issues When discussing Brisker vs Telzher derakhim, everyone focuses on "Vus?" vs "Fahr vus?" (What? vs Why?) But another major different is R' Shimon's heavy use of the concept of hitztarfus -- the idea that a halakhah can be caused by the convergence of multiple factors. >From Widen Your Tent (by me), sec. 6.3: But there is a second distinction: Rav Chaim would explain an apparent contradiction by finding "the chiluk," the distinction between two cases that we initially thought ought to be the same, or the distinction between the viewpoints in two sides of a dispute. Rav Chaim's is a reductionist approach to analyzing a topic; it teaches how to understand something by identifying and understanding each of its parts. This methodology is suited for identifying "the cause" of a law. Rav Shimon also invokes hitztarfus, fusion or connectedness. It allows us to better ask, once we know the parts, how do they combine and interact to produce the given result? From this vantage point, rather than looking for a single cause, we can see that a given ruling can come from the way in which many halachic causes combine. Suppose we were tasked to do analysis to find out why some accident happened. For example: Why did David hurt his foot? Because a paint can fell on it. Why did the can fall? Because someone else accidentally knocked it off its shelf. Why did he knock it off the shelf? Because his nose itched, and he lifted his hand to scratch it, and also because the shelf wasn't on its brackets correctly and wobbled a bit. However, it's equally true that he hurt his foot because even though he usually wears iron-toed hiking boots, he chose not to wear them that that day. And why did he not wear his boots? Because when he was looking for something to put on his feet, someone else had turned on the light in another room, which changed his train of thought. And so on. Every event has many causes, each of which in turn has its own many causes. Rarely does an event only have one cause. We get used to identifying "the cause" of something. I would instead suggest that every event is like "the perfect storm"; each one has combinations of factors that come to a head at the same point. Similarly, Rav Shimon saw no reason to assume that it takes one cause to create an obligation or prohibition, rather than a combination of them. Which I then relate to R Shimon's approach to chessed as a widening of one's "ani" to include others. (The way we naturally have little problem giving to our children, because in a sense, they're "us".) I also use the difference between the focus on reductionism vs interconnectedness to explain a structural difference between Aristo's books and the Mishnah. WHich may be more relevant to the point: This difference between Semitic and Yefetic perspectives can be seen by contrasting the style of Aristotle with that of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Aristotle catalogues. He divides a subject into subtopics, and those subtopics even further, until one is down to the individual fact. Greek thought was focused on reductionism. To understand a phenomenon, break it down into smaller pieces and try to understand each piece. This is typical of the Yefetic perspective. That reductionism stands in contrast to the way Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi redacted the first Mishnah. The beginning of all of Mishnah could have said outright that Rabbi Eliezer ruled that the time for saying the evening Shema is from sunset and for the first third of the night. This is the way United States legal codes are arranged divided and subdivided into law, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, clauses, and items, with an effort to minimize cross-references. Instead the first Mishnah makes its point by invoking the priesthood, purity, and the night shifts in the Temple, "from the time Kohanim [who went to the mikvah to be purified during the prior day] may enter to eat their terumah until the end of the first shift." It describes the start and end times for the mitzvah using referents that one wouldn't normally assume when starting study. This is not to confuse the issue or needlessly close study from non-initiates, but because the key to understanding one mitzvah necessarily includes its connections to everything else. The proper time to say Shema cannot be understood without that context. The task Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi set out to accomplish with the Mishnah was not to explain the rationales of the halachah, and therefore the Mishnah spells out this holistic understanding. We are left not knowing why the rules of when Kohanim who needed the mikvah may eat terumah or the time the first shift in the Beis Hamikdash ended add meaning to the time span in which the nighttime Shema may be said. But the Mishnah does record the law in memorizable form, and apparently that includes helping us remember the halachah by association to the other halachos it relates to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur http://www.aishdas.org/asp with the proper intent than to fast on Yom Author: Widen Your Tent Kippur with that intent. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 12:42:04 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Limits of Parshanut Message-ID: <20200820194204.GA9194@aishdas.org> Parshanut doesn't have rules of pesaq. Nothing ever ends an opinion (lifsoq) once it is derived. So, those 98 ways become 9,604 ways, and then 941,192 ways as each interpretation gets its 98 interpretations. And then we have cases where those who pursue peshat -- Rashbam, IE, most famously -- give a peshat in the pasuq which they acknowledge runs against Chazal. But they feel Chazal weren't working bederekh peshat. (And the Rashbam is clear that he doesn't believe Chazal were wrong, or that anything he says about the pasuq has halachic signicance. E.g. see his comments on "vayhi erev, vayhi boqer".) But, procedurally, there still has to be rules for what kind of interpretation is valid and what aren't. I cannot believe that people can just make stuff up, and if fits a linguistic oddity of the text or a wording in some source of Chazal it's necessarily Torah. I don't know what the limits are. All I know is the limits of my own comfort zone. *To me*, "toras Hashem temimah" means that if I have a theory of how to understand something aggadic -- theology, mussar or parshanut -- it must be driven by material internal to the existing body Torah. If I am forced to an an entirely new understanding that no one proposed before to answer a scientific question, I would prefer leaving the question tabled, teiqu, than to run with this kind of innovation. To me, following a tendency I heard around YU from R YB Soloveitchik's students (my own rebbe, R Dovid, was yet more conservative), this is related to the difference between chiddush and shinui. "There is no beis medrash without chiddush" because learning Torah means extrapolating new points from the existing data. Extrapolation from and interpolation between existing Torah "data points" is chiddush. Shinui is innovation driven by something other than Torah. I am not sure if RYBS would say that in the context of parshanut in particular or not. As I said, as this point we're only discussing the not-that-relevant topic of "Micha's comfort zone". Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... http://www.aishdas.org/asp ... but you're the pilot. Author: Widen Your Tent - R' Zelig Pliskin - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 13:27:15 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:27:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vaccine Trials in Halakhah Message-ID: <20200820202715.GA32236@aishdas.org> Given the need for CoVID-19 vaccine challenge trials, I heard a number of podcasts on the topics of testing or volunteering to be a test subject for an experimental cure. But, it's hard to get people who are reading an email digest to take time for an audio. So, here's a link to something in text. https://thelehrhaus.com/timely-thoughts/signing-up-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-trial Here's the halachic section of the paper, minus all set-up and general ethics discussion. Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; http://www.aishdas.org/asp Experience comes from bad decisions. Author: Widen Your Tent - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF The Lehrhaus Signing Up for a COVID-19 Vaccine Trial By Sharon Galper Grossman and Shamai Grossman August 18, 2020 ... Undergoing Dangerous Medical Procedures in Halakhah Halakhah's approach to dangerous medical procedures begins with Avodah Zara 27b, which permits a hayei sha'ah - a sick individual with a limited time to live - to seek the care of a pagan doctor, because while we worry that a Jew-hating doctor might kill the Jewish patient, he might also effect a long-term cure. However, if the sick individual is unlikely to die, he may not turn to the pagan. The Gemara's explanation as to why we permit the hayei sha'ah to risk his brief remaining time alive is, "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" - we are not concerned about a risk to a short life because the pagan doctor might cure him. The Gemara derives this principle from the dilemma of the four lepers in II Kings 7:3-8. Banished from their city, which was struck by famine, they faced starvation. They saw a camp of Arameans possessing food, and were confronted by the following dilemma. If they were to enter the camp, the Arameans might kill them, yet they might feed them. Preferring possible immediate death from capture to certain subsequent death from starvation, the lepers entered the camp. There they discovered an abundance of food and survived. Tosafot (s.v. le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan) questions the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan." Doesn't Yoma 65a's permission to move stones on Shabbat to search for a hayei sha'ah buried underneath the rubble imply that we value even the briefest survival? Tosafot answers that in both cases we act in the best interest of the patient, rejecting certain death for an uncertainty that might prolong life. Thus, in Avodah Zarah, we disregard hayei sha'ah because otherwise the patient will surely die. In Yoma, we desecrate Shabbat for the hayei sha'ah because if we do not remove the stones, he will also certainly die. Based on Avodah Zara 27b and the story of the lepers, Shulhan Arukh Yoreh De'ah 155:1 codifies the principal "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan," permitting a hayei sha'ah to incur the risk of death at the hands of a pagan doctor in the hope of a long-term cure. Numerous modern poskim[7] rule that a hayei sha'ah may undergo a risky medical procedure if it offers the chance of a long-term cure. Shevut Ya'akov 3:75 explains, "Since the patient will certainly die, we push off the certainty of death and opt for the possibility of cure." One source, however, seems to prohibit the hayei sha'ah from undergoing dangerous medical treatment. Sefer Hasidim 467 describes a special herb remedy with the potential to kill or cure within days of use, accusing the women who prepared it of shortening the lives of their patients. One might interpret his denunciation as a rejection of the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan." Orhot Hayyim, Orah Hayyim 328:10 dismisses this interpretation, explaining that Sefer Hasidim only prohibits the risky remedy because there is an alternative safe treatment. He argues that in the absence of an effective alternative even Sefer Hasidim would accept the risk. Applied to our case ,the absence of an effective cure for COVID-19 might justify engaging in a risky process to find a cure. Does the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" permit healthy volunteers like Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial that injects half of the participants with a vaccine of uncertain benefit, exposing them to a lethal virus? To answer this question, we must determine if hayei sha'ah applies to healthy volunteers who do not face the risk of immediate death, the level of medical risk one may incur to achieve hayei olam (long-term cure), and the level of benefit required to justify the assumption of such risk. In addition, we must establish whether the volunteers may endanger themselves, in the absence of any personal gain, purely for the benefit of others, and whether this principle applies to experimental therapies where the benefit of treatment is unclear. Finally, if Halakhah permits participation, is one obligated to volunteer? Defining Hayei Sha'ah The discussion permitting dangerous medical treatment assumed that the individual had the status of hayei sha'ah - a terminal illness with a limited time to live. Can we interpret hayei sha'ah more broadly, and can we apply this understanding to human vaccine challenge trials involving healthy volunteers? Rishonim and early Aharonim do not define hayei sha'ah precisely. Their interpretation of the term ranges from a life expectancy as short as one to two days to longer than a year (see Table 1). Though these poskim debate the exact duration of life required to satisfy the halakhic definition of hayei sha'ah, they view a hayei sha'ah as an individual with an illness that compromises his life expectancy. At first glance, these poskim would not classify Sam, a healthy young volunteer, as a hayei sha'ah. However, Tiferet Yisrael Yoma, Yakhin 8:3, expands the definition, permitting a healthy individual to undergo smallpox vaccination, which causes death in one in 1,000 individuals, to attain long-term immunity. He dismisses the small risk of immediate death from vaccination so as to prevent future lethal infections and broadens the definition of hayei sha'ah to include situations where the cause of death is not present, but is only a statistical possibility. He bases this ruling on Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which, citing the Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, obligates a person to place himself in a possible danger to save his friend from a certain danger. So for example, if someone sees his friend drowning in the sea, he must jump in to save him though he risks drowning during his attempted rescue. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if a bystander is obligated to incur possible risk to rescue his drowning friend from a possible danger, a healthy individual may accept possible immediate peril to save himself from a possible future danger. Rabbi J.D. Bleich applies Tiferet Yisrael's definition of hayei sha'ah to healthy carriers of the BRCA mutation who act to reduce their high risk of cancer by opting for prophylactic surgery.[8] Though the cancer has not yet developed, they may incur the immediate risk of surgery to increase their life expectancy.[9] Even if we consider a genetic predisposition or a statistical probability a present danger, it is unlikely that unafflicted carriers of such a mutation will die within twelve months. By permitting a healthy individual to assume a one in 1,000 risk of immediate death to prevent a future lethal smallpox infection, Tiferet Yisrael suggests that Halakhah recognizes the importance of disease prevention, equating it with treatments for active life-threatening disease. His halakhic analysis and assessment might permit a healthy volunteer such as Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial to achieve immunity from COVID-19. However, such a trial involves substantial risk without proven benefits. In addition, because Tiferet Yisrael bases his position on the Yerushalmi which obligates an individual to endanger himself to save someone who faces certain danger, Tiferet Yisrael might even allow Sam to participate in the absence of any personal benefit, for pure altruism to save humanity. Defining a Permissible Level of Risk Aharonim debate the exact level of risk the hayei sha'ah may incur. Ahiezer 2:16:6 cites Mishnat Hakhamim to permit a dangerous treatment for a safek shakul - a risk of death less than or equal to 50%. If the risk of death exceeds 50%, the hayei sha'ah may not receive the treatment. This is also the opinion of Tzitz Elieze r 10:25:5:5. If the majority of physicians endorse treatment, Ahiezer permits a risk greater than 50% and does not define the upper limit of permitted risk. Because any COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial would receive the prior approval of an overseeing body of physicians, Ahiezer might permit participation for a risk higher than 50%. Beit David Yoreh De'ah II:340 permits a hayei sha'ah to receive a treatment that causes death in 999 out of 1,000 patients. In 1961, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58, permitted a treatment in which the odds were more than 50% that it would cause death. However, in 1972 (Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 3:36), he modified his position, permitting only a safek shakul. He concludes that a hayei sha'ah who seeks medical treatment with a greater than 50% risk of death may rely on the more lenient position of Ahiezer and receive the dangerous therapy. How does Sam's participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial compare to the risks that these poskim cite? They address situations where the person is terminally ill and faces imminent death, but do not define the level of risk a healthy individual may incur. However, Tiferet Yisrael permits a healthy individual to undergo vaccination against smallpox with a risk of death of one in 1,000. For all adults age 20-29 infected with COVID-19, including those with comorbidities, virologists estimate a 1.1% risk of complications requiring hospitalization and 0.03% risk of death,[10] an approximation that might either overestimate or underestimate Sam's true risk. Sam, who suffers no comorbidities, might be at the low end of the participation risk. Furthermore, because Sam lives in an area with a large number of COVID-19 cases, he is already at high risk of infection; participation only minimally increases this. Should he become infected, he will receive state-of-the-art care, which might reduce his complications. In addition, if researchers identify an effective treatment, that treatment would further diminish his participation risk. With appropriate risk minimization (e.g., careful titration of viral dose, early diagnosis, and optimal medical care), Sam might face little, if any, additional risk related to experimental infection. Alternatively, Sam's risk of death might be higher than estimated because the vaccine or the strain of virus injected might increase the severity of infection or the incidence of lasting harm. In addition, because the virus is so new and follow-up of those infected limited, the long-term risks of COVID-19 infection are unknown and might be greater than anticipated. Even if Sam's risk from participating is higher than estimated, his danger of death is still well below the 50% threshold that the above poskim use and the 0.1% risk that Tifferet Yisrael permits for healthy individuals undergoing smallpox vaccination. Definition of Hayei Olam - What Benefits Justify Risk? The above discussion, which explored a hayei sha'ah's acceptable level of risk with regard to medical treatments, assumed that the goal of treatment is to achieve hayei olam, a long-term cure. Poskim disagree about whether one may undergo a dangerous therapy for any other purpose, such as prolonging life in the absence of a complete recovery or the relief of pain and symptoms. Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58 and 3:36 prohibits risky treatment that merely prolongs life in the absence of complete recovery. Rav Bleich offers a different perspective.[11] Quoting Ramban's Torat ha-Adam,[12] which derives from the phrase, "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" the principle that "we are not concerned with possible [loss of] hayei sha'ah in the face of more life (hayei tuva)," Rav Bleich interprets "hayei tuva" to mean more life, and concludes that Ramban would permit dangerous medical treatment to achieve a longer period of hayei sha'ah, even in the absence of a cure. Iggerot Moshe Yore De'ah II:36 prohibits dangerous treatment for pain relief alone. Rav Yaakov Emden, Mor u-Kezi'ah 328, writes that surgery for pain relief is not "hutar le-gamrei," categorically permitted, suggesting that under specific circumstances it might be allowed. Tzitz Eliezer 13:87 permits morphine for a dying patient, although morphine might hasten his death, because nothing torments man more than intractable pain. Thus, Tzitz Eliezer would argue, a hayei sha'ah may undergo dangerous treatment not just to achieve hayei olam but also to achieve hayei tuva, longer life or pain relief. What is the benefit to Sam of participating in the human vaccine challenge trial? Will participation give him hayei olam, hayei tuva, or some other non-life prolonging benefit? First, vaccination itself or infection with or without vaccination might yield hayei olam -- a long-term cure and permanent immunity to COVID-19, akin to Tiferet Yisrael's smallpox vaccine. However, it is possible that the vaccine or infection will only provide temporary immunity. Here, participation will not achieve hayei olam, but only hayei tuva, but revaccination to boost his immunity could yield hayei olam. Second, because Sam lives in a high-infection zone, he faces a real risk of becoming infected even if he does not participate. Participation guarantees Sam priority in the allocation of medical resources and the best medical care should he become infected. By participating, Sam decreases his risk of complications and death from infection. Better care could improve his medical outcome and increase his chances of surviving COVID-19, thus facilitating hayei olam. Furthermore, if he develops immunity, he can no longer infect his family. The possibility of achieving long-term or short-term immunity to COVID-19, better treatment if infected, and relieving anxiety over infecting others are direct benefits to Sam for participating in the trial. However, it is possible that participation will provide no benefit, direct or indirect, to Sam. Sam's ultimate motivation for participation, like that of the thousands of volunteers who have come forward to participate in these trials, is altruism, helping to discover an effective vaccine that will save millions of lives. May one undergo a dangerous treatment in order to save others? Incurring Risk to Save Others Citing Talmud Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426 obligates one to place himself in a possible danger to save the life of someone facing certain danger. In Shulhan Arukh, Rav Yosef Karo and Rama omit this requirement. Sema Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 explains that Shulhan Arukh and Rama follow Rambam, Rif, Rosh, and Tur, who also omit this obligation. Pithei Teshuvah Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 suggests that they omitted this obligation because it contradicts Talmud Bavli (Niddah 61a and Sanhedrin 73a) and Jewish law typically follows Talmud Bavli. Radbaz 3:627 (53) was asked if a foreign government demands that a Jew undergo removal of a limb, a procedure presumed not to endanger his life, to save the life of another Jew, may one do so. He answers that one who consents acts with midat hasidut, a degree of piety, but if amputation will endanger his life, he is a hasid shoteh, acting illogically by violating the commandment va-hai bahem (which Sanhedrin 74a understands to mean that mitzvot are to live by and not die by). Similarly, in in Radbaz 5 Lilshonot ha-Rambam 1:582 (218), he addresses whether one is obligated to save the life of a fellow Jew, he explains that if the rescuer faces a safek mukhra - a certain danger - he has no obligation to act. But if the odds are greater that he will save his friend without endangering himself, failure to rescue transgresses lo ta'amod al dam rei'ekha. Tiferet Yisrael bases his teshuvah permitting a healthy volunteer to undergo smallpox vaccination on Talmud Yerushalmi and Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which obligate a person to place himself in danger to save a drowning friend. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if one may endanger himself to rescue his friend from danger, he may certainly assume risk of vaccination to save himself and achieve long-term immunity. In fact, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:174:4 permits one to accept a possible danger if it will save someone else from a definite danger. Tzitz Eliezer 13:101 rules that one may participate in experimental therapy and donate blood to benefit others if physicians determine that participation is risk-free. We consider such participation a mitzvah. In this situation, however, physicians cannot determine the risk of Sam's participating in the human vaccine trial and cannot claim that the trial is without risk. In Yehaveh Da'at 3:84, Rav Ovadia Yosef prohibits treatment with a risk greater than 50% based on Radbaz's classification of a rescuer who endangers himself for a safek shakul as a hasid shoteh. Rav Ovadia Yosef states that the majority of Aharonim, including Eliyah Rabba 328:8, Netziv ha-Emek She'eilah Re'eh 147:4, Aruh Ha-shulkhan 426, Mishpat Kohen 143-2, Heikhal Yitzhak Orah Hayyim 3, and Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 1:145, support this position. However, he permits kidney donation and even considers it a mitzvah, because the risk to the donor is low; according to the physicians with whom he consulted, 99% of donors recover fully from the operation. Interestingly, like Rav Ovadia Yosef, ethicists point to kidney donation as a model for determining the level of risk one may accept to benefit others[13,14] and consider the risk of death from participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial equivalent to the risk of death from kidney donation.[15] Because the risk of death from participating in this trial is significantly less than 50% and is comparable to the risk of kidney donation, Halakhah would seem to permit Sam's altruistic enrollment to save others from certain death from the virus. In fact, Sam's participation, which has the potential to save not just one life, like a kidney donor, but millions, is not only permitted but meritorious. One might even argue that Sam is obligated to participate based on lo ta'amod al dam rei'ekha. Rav Asher Weiss in Minhat Asher 3:122 cites Ta'anit 18b as proof that an individual may endanger himself to save the community, and in doing so performs a great mitzvah. According to Rashi, Turyanus, a Roman official, accused the Jews of murdering the emperor's daughter. He threatened mass execution unless the guilty party confessed. To save the community, Lilianus and Pappus, falsely do so. Turyanos executes them and spares the community. Rav Weiss concludes that an individual who gives his life to save the community has a direct path to the Garden of Eden. He states that when a nation is at war, there are unique rules of pikuah nefesh, the obligation to save a life. To win, the nation requires the self-sacrifice of not only its soldiers, but all those who fill essential, life-saving roles, such as police officers, fire fighters, security guards, and physicians. In the midst of a pandemic that has infected 13,000,000 and led to the death of 500,000 worldwide, one may reasonably conclude that we are at war with COVID-19, and that Sam and the other volunteers for a human vaccine challenge trial are voluntary conscripts. Though Halakhah permits one to undergo risky treatment to achieve a long-term cure, poskim, including Tiferet Yisrael Yoma 8:3, do not obligate participation. If the chance that the treatment will succeed is greater than 50%, Iggerot Moshe in Yore De'ah 3:36 and Choshen Mishpat 2:74:5 Rav Bleich explains that assuming risk for a long-term cure is permitted but not obligatory, because we trust a person to do what is reasonable to safeguard his body from danger. For those who are risk averse, undertaking a dangerous treatment or participating in a human vaccine trial would be unreasonable, while for the less conservative, such as Sam, the risk is acceptable. Experimental Therapy in Halakhah The discussion about dangerous medical treatment applies to therapies with known medical benefits. How does Halakhah approach risks incurred for experimental therapy with no proven benefit? Ttitz Eliezer 13:101 limits participation in experimental treatment to trials that are risk-free. Rav Moshe Dov Welner in ha-Torah ve-haMedinah, VII-VIII (5716-5717), 314, prohibits participation in clinical trials that lack scientific basis. He addresses a situation where the physician has no idea how to treat a disease and decides to experiment on a dying patient because the patient will die anyway. He calls such a physician a terrorist. The scientific reality surrounding human vaccine trials is vastly different than this extreme example. While the exact benefits of participation - such as whether the vaccine confers immunity and whether it will eradicate COVID-19 - are unknown, these trials employ vaccines that have already shown promise in preliminary trials and undergone extensive review by governmental and international agencies that have approved their scientific merit as potential vaccines. Such trials would not qualify as acts of desperation, implemented because the patient is dying anyway. Minhat Shlomo 2:82:12 permits participation in medical research, classifying the battle against disease as a milhemet mitzvah, a necessary war. Today we do not have a king or beit din to declare a milhemet mitzvah against disease and obligate the healthy to take dangerous medicines to help find a cure. He writes that because recognized experts, our contemporary equivalent of a beit din or king, take great care to execute these studies, one may participate. He explains that participation qualifies as holeh lefanenu, the presence of an actual sick person before us, which is considered a fundamental halakhic requirement for defining a situation as pikuah nefesh. In Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De'ah 280, Rav Yehezkel Landau prohibited autopsies because they are for the benefit of future patients, not those who appear before us now, and thus fail to meet a strict definition of holeh lefanenu.[16] Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explains that those autopsies were performed exclusively to increase the physician's knowledge, so are not comparable to experimental therapy. Rav Auerbach believes that contemporary medical research qualifies as holeh lefanenu because those sick with these diseases are before us, and the treatments to be tested are before us. He considers participation in clinical trials safek hatzalat nefashot - possibly life-saving - and not merely an academic exercise to increase scientific knowledge. Human Vaccine Challenge Trials Recently, Rav Asher Weiss[17] directly addressed the permissibility of participating in such trials. Reiterating his position in Minhat Asher 3:101 that one may endanger oneself to perform an essential communal role such as serving as a police officer, rescue worker, or even judge who risks death threats, he permits young, healthy individuals to participate in COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trials in controlled environments because the risk of complications or death is low, especially for those who are young and lack comorbidities, and the trial can potentially save thousands of lives. He notes the concerns of Noda be-Yehuda[18] and Hatam Sofer,[19] who prohibited autopsies because such procedures failed to satisfy their halakhic definition of holeh lefanenu. Rav Weiss explains that even if we do not define participation as pikuah nefesh, overriding biblical and rabbinic prohibitions, it is a mitzvah since it will save millions of lives. This social good permits Sam to assume the small risk of participation. Furthermore, one cannot extrapolate from the autopsies of the Noda be-Yehuda to contemporary scientific reality. It is highly unlikely that autopsies performed two hundred years ago affected medical care. He writes, "verifying the efficacy of a vaccine would not be categorized as a benefit in the distant future, but rather as a great mitzvah that is, in fact, halakhically considered to be possibly life-saving." He rejects Rav Auerbach's classification of medical research as milhemet mitzvah because this designation obligates participation in medical research, and Rav Weiss believes that participation is not obligatory. Only wars fought against enemy armies qualify as milhamot mitzvah, not public dangers such as wild animals and diseases, to which only the laws of pikuach nefesh apply. Conclusion The halakhic decisions cited above, including perhaps even Radbaz, would seem to permit Sam's participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial, because a healthy individual may incur a small risk of death, comparable to the risk permitted for other acts of altruism such as kidney donation to achieve long-term immunity. In addition, the potential benefit to society is immeasurable, preventing the death and suffering of millions by halting the spread of this pandemic and ending the physical, psychological, and economic devastation of prolonged social distancing. Table 1 ... [Okay, I couldn't pass the summary table of who defines chayei sha'ah as how long to the digest. So, go check the URL for yourself! Skipping to the foonotes. -micha] ... [7] Shvut Yaakov 3:75, Pithei Teshuvah Yoreh De'ah 339:1, Gilyon Maharsha Yoreh De'ah 155:1, Binat Adam 73, 93, Binyan Tziyyon 111, Tiferet Yisrael Boaz, Yoma 8:3, Ahiezer 2:16:6, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58 and 3:36, and Tzitz Eliezer 4:13, all permit a hayei sha'ah to undergo risky medical treatment for cure. [8] Bleich, J.D., "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures," Tradition, 37, no.3 (2003): 76-100, [241]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23262430 . [9] Bleich, J.D. "Genetic Screening: Survey of Recent Halachic Periodical Literature," Tradition, 34, no.1 (2000): 63-87, [243]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23261641?seq=1 . [10] Verity, R. et al, "Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis," Lancet Infect. Dis. March 30, 2020, [245]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20 )30243-7/fulltext . [11] Bleich, J.D., "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures," Tradition, 37, no. 3 (2003): 94. [12] Kol Kitvei ha-Ramban, II, 38. [13] Miller, G., Joffe, S., "Limits to Research Risks," J. Med. Ethics 35, 445 (2009). [14] Resnik, D., "Limits on Risks for Healthy Volunteers in Biomedical Research," Theor. Med. Bioeth. 33, no. 2 (April, 2012): 137. [15] Verity, R. et al, "Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis," Lancet Infect. Dis. March 30, 2020, [251]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20 )30243-7/fulltext. [16] For a more detailed discussion of the definition of holeh lefanenu in Covid-19, see our earlier Lehrhaus essay, [253]https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/sharpening-the-definition-of-h oleh-lefanenu-the-diamond-princess-and-the-limits-of-quarantine/. [17] Rav Asher Weiss, "Experimental Treatments for Coronavirus," Mosaica Press (2020): 5-7. [18] Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De'ah, 210. [19] Hatam Sofer Yoreh De'ah, 336. From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Aug 20 14:43:28 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:43:28 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. Message-ID: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> << Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory...." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required." Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? >> See Igeros Moshe Even HaEzer Chelek 1 siman 48 and also (and particularly) Igeros Moshe Orech Chaim chelek 5 siman 37:12: ????? ???? ???? ????, ???? ?????. ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????. ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????. ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? (???? ?"? ?"?), ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????. ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????. The covering of the head before her husband is not necessary. Since the prohibition of uncovering the head is only in the marketplace. And even at the time of her period, there is no prohibition in her house before her husband and children. And there is a hidur to do like Kimchit (Yoma 47a) but we have not heard that there are any modest like this and even in the earlier generations. And in the time of the Tanaim the married women were not accustomed so except for individuals like Kimchit. Note specifically *but we have not heard that there are any modest like this, and even in the earlier generations*. A reasonably translation of this is surely: neither Rav Moshe's wife, nor his mother did this. <> I think it depends on your community. In a modern orthodox community in which most women are not covering their hair when they go out in a public place either, I suspect many if not most of the few women who do cover their hair when they go out absolutely rely on this position, and sometimes more lenient ones inside their homes (ie only cover their hair when they go out, as per the pshat of the mishna & gemora in Ketubos as referred to by Rav Moshe, and not when in their home regardless of who is there). In the Satmar community where they shave their heads, no, I am pretty sure no women are relying on this leniency. Within the communities on the spectrum between these two poles, I suspect it varies, getting more likely as you move towards the more "modern" end and less likely as you move towards the more charedi and certainly Chassidic end. But Rav Moshe never having heard of it in his and in previous generations is a notable data point. Regards Chana From mcohen at touchlogic.com Thu Aug 20 17:04:40 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:04:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. In-Reply-To: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> Thank you for your comments RCL wrote... Note specifically *but we have not heard that there are any modest like this, and even in the earlier generations*. A reasonably translation of this is surely: neither Rav Moshe's wife, nor his mother did this. True; although I would like to hear what the Feinstein children testify about their mothers hanhaga.. RCL wrote... Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the presence of your father, husband and son. R moshe as quoted only mentions husband/children. Where/how do we expand this to her brother? if it was bc of the simple pshat of the Mishna & gemora in Ketubos, then everyone should be ok inside (not just brother/family) and if the heter is based on inside - is uncovered hair allowed when swimming w husband/children alone (but outside)? (it is illogical to suggest that there is a continual obligation to cover her hair outside, even when a permissible situation such as alone or only with other women) Mc From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Aug 20 17:56:42 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 01:56:42 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. In-Reply-To: <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> References: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <000001d67755$efd44600$cf7cd200$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMC writes: <> Actually, this wasn't me, this was the yoetzet website you quoted. <> I assume that the reasoning behind the website's psak is based on with whom she is allowed to have yichud. Rav Moshe also doesn't specifically mention father, and yet the logic of the website including father as automatically on the same page as husband and children would seem to be driven by the unity of halacha regarding yichud. The yichud status of brothers is a bit more complex, as a certain level of yichud is allowed, but not completely, and hence they would seem the logical extension to question, and one could understand a view that, to the extent yichud is allowed, so should this be. >Mc Regards Chana From akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com Fri Aug 21 03:06:29 2020 From: akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 06:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > I'd love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - > machshava balma (random thought?) which has no halachic significance, > amira (specific oral articulation) which is completely binding and > amen/specific machshava (really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat > indeterminate (not welcome in a brisker world?) It seems to me that what you're really asking is: How/why does "Shomea k'oneh" work? Why is it that if I listen to someone say something, and we both have the correct "specific machshava", it is considered "as if" I had said it myself? And, just as importantly, to what *extent* is it considered as if I said it myself? As an illustration of this principle, R' Danny Schoemann cited the Kitzur in 127:3 > Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday > following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi > shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient... > Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, > you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself. I'd like to offer another illustration: If a person is saying Shemoneh Esreh when the shul is at Kaddish or Kedusha, Mechaber 104:7 writes that "He should be quiet and pay attention to the shatz, and it will be like he is answering." And the Mishne Berura 104:28 explains: "It will be like he is answering for the purpose of being thereby yotzay for Kaddish and Kedusha, but nevertheless it is not considered a hefsek." The halacha of Shomea K'oneh seems to allow us to have it both ways: We have *effectively* said something, yet not *actually* said anything. [Email #2. -micha] Addendum to what I wrote a few minutes ago: I know that Shomea K'Oneh is effective even when one does not actually respond "Amen". After all, a precise translation of the phrase would NOT be "listening is like answering Amen", but is rather "mere listening is like repeating it yourself." And yet, I seem to recall that there are some specific cases where the halacha differs depending on whether the person actually said "Amen" aloud, vs where he merely listened with all the correct intentions. Does anyone else know of such cases? Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 21:33:33 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:33:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: To prevent the spread of COVID see https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the shofar? Does it affect the sound? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Fri Aug 21 04:57:08 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:57:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21/8/20 12:33 am, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > To prevent the spread of COVID see > https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ > > What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the > shofar? Does it affect the sound? The OU says it doesn't appear to. https://www.ou.org/covid19/ 9. Shofar: An appropriate precaution during shofar blowing would be to place a surgical mask over the wider end of the shofar, as this does not appear to alter the sound of the shofar blast. Some may point the shofar out an open window or door, or near and towards the front wall or aron kodesh, facing away from the congregation. A single shofar should not be used by multiple people, and no barrier should be placed between the shofar and the mouth of the one blowing the shofar. Poskim have addressed when and how much to sound the shofar where the time in shul is seriously limited -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 12:07:00 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 15:07:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 07:33:33AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ > What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the > shofar? Does it affect the sound? As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does not affect the sound. But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer without specifying which kind(s) of masks they experimented with. The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else with sensitive hearing in the minyan, you need them to say they don't hear a difference if they personally wish to be yotzei.) But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use. Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices. Chodesh Tov! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but add justice, don't complain about heresy, Author: Widen Your Tent but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Sat Aug 22 17:47:42 2020 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 20:47:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:45 PM Micha Berger wrote: >> What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the >> shofar? Does it affect the sound? > As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does > not affect the sound. > But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer ... > The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound > of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else > with sensitive hearing in the minyan... > But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the > resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use. > Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from > the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices. I blow shofar for my shul. I have placed a surgical mask on the shofar and blew the shofar for the Rav both on and off without him looking at the shofar. He did not hear a real difference and I concurred. You can get a different sound from the shofar depending on how you place it on your lips and the amount of air used. Rav Shulman of YU / YI Midwood suggests blowing under your tallit or at a door without a mask on the shofar. From zev at sero.name Sun Aug 23 01:04:56 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 04:04:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does > not affect the sound. No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound, and is therefore permissible. I have no idea whether they're right, but this is what they say, and they know the halacha, so I assume they've done whatever is necessary to determine the metzius. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 06:11:31 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 09:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200823131130.GA6504@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 04:04:56AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does >> not affect the sound. > No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound... As per the rest of the post you're quoting: My comment was that they take it for granted that the mask(s) they tested with are indicative of the mask a member shul may be using. I would not. (Had I been in the OU, I would have been more specific about which brand mask.) But I'm not questioning their pesaq that listening on the other side of the mask is the original qol and not a "qol havarah". ("Hatoqeia lesokh habor, mishnah RH, on top of 27b in Vilna Bavli) I therefore isolated their halachic stance which from their depiction of the mtzi'us. Because I wanted to raise the question whether, even leshitasam, is a piano tuner or other person with sensitive hearing can hear a difference the rest of us can't, would he be yotzei. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect http://www.aishdas.org/asp painting? It's easy. Author: Widen Your Tent Make yourself perfect and then just paint - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 19:45:48 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 22:45:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault Message-ID: . At the Eglah Arufa, the zekeinim declare, "Our hands did not spill this blood! Our eyes did not see!" I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: > The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly > responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any > stranger from our city without food (so that he might have > been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or > without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected > on a dangerous road)." How can the zekeinim have been so sure? Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed? We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident? I considered the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas Orchim organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never will happen. (The three listed there, if I read it correctly, are Ben Sorer Umoreh, Ir Hanidachas, and a house getting tzaraas.) But it's *not* listed there, so I suppose it might have happened, or at least, *could* happen. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Sun Aug 23 06:35:32 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 13:35:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed? > > We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident? > > ??????- I?m not sure these are Mutually exclusive. Perhaps they are saying that the fault is not systemic and of course we have to see where we fell short and try to improve on it Kt Joel RichTHIS 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 zev at sero.name Sun Aug 23 07:39:22 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 10:39:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22/8/20 10:45 pm, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I considered?the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only > done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the > Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas?Orchim > organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever > occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been > listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never > will happen. The answer seems very simple. Not even the most thorough hachnassas orchim will ever prevent all murders, because most crimes are *not* committed out of need. The idea that the victim was actually a robber who was killed in legitimate self-defence, but in a further plot twist he only robbed out of desperate need, and had the city's elders done their job this would never have happened, is very far-fetched. The overwhelming likelihood is that he was an innocent person who was killed by a robber who was acting out of greed or sheer wickedness, as *most* robbers do. The Zekeinim are merely ruling out that far-fetched scenario in which they would bear some responsibility. And if you ask why, in that case, do they have to go through this whole rigmarole to rule it out, I suggest that it's so that this possibility is always on their minds, and they do their utmost to make sure that in the unlikely even that a body is ever found they should be *able* to make this declaration. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Aug 23 06:27:37 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:27:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Going swimming with your sister Message-ID: I always thought that brothers and sisters (even teenagers) could go mixed swimming privately just the immediate family because we assume that there are no hirhurim among immediate family members. However, I listened to the Headlines podcast where he interviewed an Israeli posek from Machon Puah who claimed that it was forbidden. Anyone have any sources? Piskei Halacha from modern poskim? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Aug 23 09:24:06 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:24:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee Message-ID: From https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-will-be-travelling-and-would-like-to-know-if-there-is-a-concern-of-bishul-akum-with-coffee-a-consumers-question I will be travelling and would like to know if there is a concern of bishul akum with coffee? (A consumer's question) OU Kosher Certification Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel. Raw coffee beans are inedible, a... See the above URL for more. From zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 24 09:27:09 2020 From: zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com (Zalman Alpert) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 12:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As > previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh > al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel. > Raw coffee beans are inedible, a... Great example of what DR Hayym Soloveitchik wrote about in his seminal essay Rupture and Reconstruction. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Aug 24 10:49:59 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 13:49:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200824174959.GF11765@aishdas.org> Bishul aku"m only applies to foods that are olim al shulchan melakhim. Qiddush can be made on chamar medinah. Seems to be a lower standard, when it comes to drinks, as the masses are unlikely to be pickier than their kings. The AhS (OC 272:12) ranks yayin and then sheikhar ahead of other drinks, but does include sweetened tea among the things one may make qiddush on. Similarly, IM OC 2:75. (Likely an indication of the price of sugar, RYME names tei matoq in particular as chamar medinah, not just writing "tei". Another measure of their poverty is his discussing their general use of raisin wine, as a reason why they were allowed to choose sheikhar even if wine was available. Meaning, I don't know if the AhS would allow this choice for us today.) But I am wondering benogei'ah to our original topic is whether it's possible to formulate a consistent shitah in which coffee can not be used for Qiddush and also cannot be used if bishul aku"m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message http://www.aishdas.org/asp that God is not yet discouraged with Author: Widen Your Tent humanity. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabindranath Tagore From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Aug 24 11:18:23 2020 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 14:18:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: I have an even better solution. Have the baal tekiah get a Covid test now and then a couple days before R?H and if both tests are negative and he is in good health, the chances of him having the virus is almost zero. From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 24 16:08:22 2020 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 7:02 PM Cantor Wolberg wrote: > Have the baal tekiah get a Covid test now and then a couple days before > R"H and if both tests are negative and he is in good health, the > chances of him having the virus is almost zero. It is possible to catch the virus after getting tested. Most tests take days to come back; by then you are contagious. Only if you test positive for antibodies, do you know that you have had the virus. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Aug 24 18:33:48 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:33:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee Message-ID: . According to the OU at the link posted, > Nonetheless, the Pri Chodosh writes that brewed coffee need > not be bishul Yisroel, since coffee is primarily water, and > water does not require bishul Yisroel. I have difficulty following that logic. Granted that if one looks at the ingredients, coffee is indeed primarily water. But why is that fact more relevant than the importance that society gives to this beverage? R' Micha Berger pointed out that Chamar Medinah "seems to be a lower standard" than Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim, and I'd agree. But I think it's irrelevant, because it is obvious to me that coffee is Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim. The dessert at a state dinner would not be s'mores and Slurpees; it would be elegant cakes and coffee. I suspect that for some reason (possibly the fact that Bishul Akum has little to do with kashrus and much to do with limiting our social contact with non-Jews), the rabbis went out of their way to find leniencies for it, and drinks is an example of such a leniency; I suspect that it never occurred to Chazal to extend the gezera beyond solid foods. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Aug 26 09:49:29 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:49:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Honoring Step Parents & More Message-ID: Please see https://vosizneias.com/2020/08/26/honoring-step-parents-more/ I found this to be a very interesting article YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 23:07:38 2020 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:07:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: It seems more reasonable to blow under the tallis without a mask. After a while, the tokea has to shake water out of the shofar. Slightly challenging with a mask on it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 23:11:27 2020 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:11:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Davening_at_home_on_Yamim_Nora=E2=80=99im?= Message-ID: This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. We will miss out on much of the ?experience? of the piyutim. Does anyone know of guidelines for what to do at home, such as part of chazarat haShatz? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 05:57:18 2020 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:57:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im Message-ID: RChaim Tafel wrote: > This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul > for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. > We will miss out on much of the "experience" of > the piyutim. Does anyone know of guidelines for > what to do at home, such as part of chazarat haShatz? Say them all except for the few you should only ever say when you are shatz, for example the netilot reshut, like all the misod chakhamim unevonim lines and such as the Ochila (which really, in my opinion, despite the popular tunes, the tzibbur should never say, as it is the netilat reshut for the shatz to insert the seder ha'avodah). Also skip obviously hineni he'ani mima'as, as it is for the shatz. Also skip the E-lohein vE-lohei Avoteinu heyei 'im pifiyot (which in my opinion the shatz shouldn't ever say, as it is a prayer for the shatz' success recited by the public). Finally, obviously whenever the cachzor calls for reciting 13 middot, depending on the poskim you follow, either skip or recite with te'amim. Otherwise I see no reason why you couldn'T beautifully sing your way through the entire machzor. But don't use one of these butchered machzorim, go for the real, unabbreviated, full and complete Rdelheim. (I am assuming you're ashkenazi, because Sefardi piyutim are altogether different). [Email #2. -micha] By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata Hu E-loheinu. In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. I am obviously totally tolerant, but it is still poetically wrong, objectively so. ;-) Ketiva vachatima tova, -- Mit freundlichen Gren, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Aug 28 06:14:15 2020 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 07:53 AM 8/28/2020, Chaim Tate wrote: >This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul for Rosh Hashanah and >Yom Kippur. >We will miss out on much of the ?experience? of the piyutim. >Does anyone know of guidelines for what to do at home, such as part of >chazarat haShatz? The YI of Midwood sent out an email saying that no piyyutim will be said during the davening on the Yomim Noraim. After all in many shuls the davening on Shabbos has been curtailed due to concerns about the virus. (no speeches and no singing). In some shuls people have been told to daven up to Baruch She'omer before coming to shul. So you won't be missing anything if other shuls follow the YI of Midwood! Personally I hope they do. Long davening can lead to the spread of the virus even with proper social distancing. Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said the it is better to daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more that 15 minutes , IIRC. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From crclbas at aol.com Fri Aug 28 06:49:54 2020 From: crclbas at aol.com (BenS) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:49:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Yomim Tovim References: <2007338277.6646156.1598622594128.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2007338277.6646156.1598622594128@mail.yahoo.com> The RCA And? ?YU have sent suggestions for shuls who want to skip certain piyutim. ASk your Rov for these guidelines. This can also be used for those who must daven at home. But be sure to arrange for Shofar on the second day. Minimum of 30 Kolos are needed. Shonoh Tovah!! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Aug 30 06:53:54 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 13:53:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos Message-ID: Please see https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-want-to-order-a-new-cell-phone-and-am-not-particular-when-it-will-arrive-am-i-permitted-to-place-an-order-online-if-the-website-indicates-the-package-will-arrive-on-saturday/?category&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shsh%20Ki%20Teitzei%205780%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=32470835&spUserID=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&spJobID=1764350018&spReportId=MTc2NDM1MDAxOAS2 YL I want to order a new cell phone and am not particular when it will arrive. Am I permitted to place an order online if the website indicates the package will arrive on Saturday? | OU Kosher Certification The issue here is whether arranging a delivery for Shabbos constitutes Amirah li?akum (instructing a non-Jew to perform melacha on Shabbos), which is prohibited. One might assume that this is analogous to handing a letter to a non-Jew on Friday and a... oukosher.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Aug 29 19:57:19 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 22:57:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d Message-ID: . In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? This may happen elsewhere too, but this case stands out because the form changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out to Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the contrast? If the third person was reasonable in the first part, why switch to the first person later on? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Aug 31 13:58:44 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-want-to-order-a-new-cell-phone-and-am-not-particular-when-it-will-arrive-am-i-permitted-to-place-an-order-online-if-the-website-indicates-the-package-will-arrive-on-saturday > One may not place an order if the delivery will definitely take place > on Shabbos. For example, one cannot send a package with UPS or FedEx > on Friday and select ?next day delivery?. Similarly, one cannot order > a refrigerator or washing machine from a store and arrange for a > Saturday delivery. I disagree with the author on this. Since they could choose to deliver after Shabbos and still fulfil their obligation, you are not telling them to deliver on Shabbos. In the winter this could actually happen. But even in the summer, when you can be fairly sure they won't do that, that's their choice not yours; if they did arrive after Shabbos you would have no right to complain, so you are not asking them to work on Shabbos. Only if they guarantee that "all deliveries will be made during business hours" or something similar would you not be allowed to order a Saturday delivery. And even then, if there's a space for delivery notes, and you write that late night delivery will be OK, that should be enough to permit it, even if you can be fairly sure it won't change anything. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Sep 1 06:53:18 2020 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:53:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > > From: Akiva Miller > > In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today > to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) > > Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > This may happen elsewhere too, I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the G-d of Avraham, etc. Therefore, the layman refers to the G-d of the Kohane, whose biblical role is to teach of Hashem and His Torah and therefore conceptualized Hashem more accurately. (I would have to concede that at first sight this does not work in cases where the person bringing the Bikkurim is actually greater than the Kohane. One can answer that it's a matter of *lo plug, *using a fixed formula for everyone at all times, following the normal situation. Or I would modify my explanation to say that the Kohane may not necessarily have a higher conceptualization but, through his avodah, a unique one not shared by others, which is relevant to the Bikkurim bringer in his role as such.) but this case stands out because the form > changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out to > Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the contrast?... > I think the above explanation works to explain this. In fact, note that the farmer is referring to the G-d of our "ancestors," meaning G-d as understood by the avos. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 12:29:01 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:29:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901192901.GA18013@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:53:18AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > This may happen elsewhere too, > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > G-d of Avraham, etc... I would have written something very similar, if RAM's email weren't still flagged "to do" in my email box when RZL's came in. However, I wouldn't have used the word "hasagah". I would have talked about the need to list "E-lokei Avraham", "E-lokai Yitzchaq" and "E-lokai Yaaqov" separately. To me, it speaks to the idea that the avos each had distinct relationships with the Borei. The "G-d of Avraham" was a different relationship than the G-d Yitzchaq "had" (kevayakhol). I don't know how RZL meant the word "hasagah", but to me it speaks to knowing *about* something. As in greater people have greater understandings of what G-d is. I would instead has said that "E-lokekha" is about the G-d the kohein has time to relate to more constantly than the farmer does. And it might also make the Vidui a statement about the farmer's relationship with G-d. Rather than who has more relationship, but about kidn of relationship. After all, the kohein may be learning, teaching and doing avodah all day, but the farmer teams up with G-d and relies on G-d to produce his crop. That's the point of the vidui -- that the G-d of Yetzias Mitzrayim gets credit for more day-to-day things my success. Something a kohein may only get more vicariously. So, he's saying to the kohein, "G-d is not only how you relate to Him from your ivory tower -- 'Your G-d', realize He also is intimately involved in my life and everyday life." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Interesting quote my signature generator chose from the perspective of being this close to the end of 5780. (Although we must remember, we are likely the first generation for whom life is normally so wonderful, this year qualified as a notably "bad" one.) -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 15:54:36 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901225436.GC18013@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:30:40PM -0400, Ken Bloom wrote: > Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one > should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in > finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. I'll give you "or elsewhere". Here's what I do. 1- During the year, I try to keep a cheshbon hanefesh. Laziness and momentum being what it is, that means that I usually have a journal of the decisions and reactions of a few 1 to 2 month stretches during the year. So, something I do early in Elul is review those, see patterns, what changed during the gaps... And trying to compensate changes because I was just focused on different things in different parts of the year. I then try to mentally fill in the gaps, as I can. And then I make a list of those issues in my reactions, decisions and actions that seem to have recurred a lot. It's often not the issues I was thinking I was failing at before I looked through notes. For that matter, even if you "just" keep a diary of your responses to the week -- not what happened to you, but how you responded to it -- from now to RH would give more insight to what habits and middos might really need the most attention. And to make that list, I try for a list of 2 to 4 items that both need the most attention and yet balanced with things I can actually tackle. For example, I have a long-running battle with ka'as. But it may not be the chink in the armor most ready to move. I might want to work on my frustration threshold, noting that my temper is very often the sum of frustration plus having someone I can pin blame on. And the plan has to be incremental. Not "starting YK I never will..." or "will always", but "starting YK I will take the first step to... which is..." For exmple, not expressing frustration in a given set of situations. Or maybe right after work for the first hour I'm home. Or whatever. 2- So much for correcting past mistakes. My other step is something Bank of America mislabeled Hoshin Planning that I adapted for life. https://www.aishdas.org/asp/hoshin-plan 2a- Find a Mission Statement At this point, I have a mission statement I aspire to live by. The first year, I didn't. I picked a quote from a sefer that at the time (and still) really moved me. Look for something from a seifer (including the siddur) that sums up life's mission for you. Is it about deveiqus? And if about deveiqus -- what does that mean to you? Knowledge (as per the Rambam)? Experiencing the Divine? Having a relationship with Hashem? Partnering with Him in His Work -- and what is His Work? Or maybe you see it in terms of sheleimus or temimus. But then, what is a person supposed to be, that you can talk about being more perfect at being one? Is it emulating Hashem? Or bein adam lachaveiro? Or maybe you're on another page altogether -- you see the Torah's mission for your life in terms of Jewish Nationhood, or humanity. And I realize many of those will yield different phrasing of nearly the same answer. But only nearly the same. There could be situations where connotations matter and have a nafqa mina lemaaseh. But in any case, it has to be moving and inspiring based on the way HQBH made you. In short -- a sentence or two about how you see what the Torah is telling you to be at this point in your life. After the first year, you tweak it and revise it as you change. 2b- Drilling down A Mission Statement is pointless if it doesn't have a way to influence action. In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for the firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could help reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division. His group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc... The idea is that there is an individual programmer like myself can be shown how my program fits in the team's goal, the group's goal and so on up to the firm's goal as written up in the Mission Statement. Similarly life's Mission Statement. We can divide it and subdivide it into managable lists. Maybe three bullet items as top-level goals to make the mission statament happen. And 2-4 each for each of those goals to make subgoals and so on. The idea is to get to the point that when you decide to go to the kitchen to get a cup of coffee, you have a way to relate that decision to the approach to living al pi haTorah that you framed for yourself. Let me give an example, taken from the above blog page. Since I wrote a book based on R Shimon's haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher, the quote would be no surprise. For that matter, ch. 2 is titled "Mission Statement" and is a collection of thoughts about the openining sentence of the haqdamah. See the first paragraph of the copy in Widen Your Tent sec 1.1, pg 45 of the book or pg 4 of https://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf#page=4 So, my orignal mission statement translates to (it is important to be in first person singular): [My] greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that [I] walk in His ways. Now I can divide that into three subgoals: - Having a connection to G-d - Internalizing His Will - Being a conduit of Hashem's Good into the lives of others. Internalizing His will, for example, was first subdivided into - Daily learning (which is what drives projects like AhS Yomi) - Daily Mussar work (like what I'm describing in this post), and - Regular in-depth learning -- chavrusos, shiurim, etc... Notice at this point I can start filling in things I can do this year. What learning? Which shiurim? As in part 1 -- which middos and what are the first months' exercises to chip away at them. (And buying a pretty new notebook. Somehow I do best at cheshbon hanefesh when I have a kewl new toy to do it with.) Hopefully, by month end when this "Spiritual Hoshin Plan" is done, I can pause in the middle of the workday and be able to say for myself that I'm putting up with this irate trader on the phone (I work for a Hedge Fund) so that I can pay for tuition (goal 3.2.4.2.5 or some-such), I can develop my personal creativity (as per 1.2... as being in the image of the Creator is something I view as a Mussar goal), etc.. And thereby give sanctity to an otherwise mundane (and stressfull) activity. And then every year things shift. Both in how I look at the world and in what are the pressing issues requiring more attention. Where parenting sits in the hierarchy was very different when I started than now that my youngest is a teenager. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. http://www.aishdas.org/asp It preserves health, promotes convalescence, Author: Widen Your Tent and helps us cope with adversity. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 12:46:48 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:46:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901194648.GB18013@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:45:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In > the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: >> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly >> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any >> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have >> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or >> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected >> on a dangerous road)." > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed > through unnoticed? Does it say that unnoticed strangers are included? The gemara (Sotah 46b) says (original at https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.9 ): Would it cross our minds that BD were murderers? Rather [they are saying]: He did not come to us and we dismissed him without food. We didn't see him and leave him without accompaniment. My translation matches the TMS's, minus their parenthetic comments. (Which I will now assume is the author's insertions, rather than part of the medrash.) The two phrases "lo ba leyadeinu" and "vera'inhu" seem to me to mean the BD are saying that the didn't neglect anyone they knew of. That not knowing the person was in town would be one of the reasons they wouldn't be guilty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the http://www.aishdas.org/asp better if possible, and of changing himself for Author: Widen Your Tent the better if necessary. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 05:00:31 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos Message-ID: . Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day away. I think it is assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. In contrast, if I request Monday delivery, that would be okay, even though I know that they'll be working for me on Shabbos, because it was their choice to work on Saturday rather than Sunday. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 07:11:20 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:11:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:00:31AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? Well, if there isn't a contracted delivery date of Shabbos, then it's their choice whether to do melakhah for you on Shabbos, Friday or Sunday. The package could sit around in a transfer facility for 25 hours while they deal with more urgent packages if it's not the delivery date. The choice is theirs. But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. I guess in the case of (eg) 3 day delivery, since it wouldn't violate the contract to get it there in 2, someone might argue that you aren't asking them to do the delivery on Shabbos. But I don't know if mutar alternatives matter even when they're implausible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Sep 2 11:46:49 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:46:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66cf413b-bbfa-c02e-885f-8a8bb7e152ce@sero.name> On 2/9/20 8:00 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day > away. I think it is?assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know > that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. I agree, *if* you know where it's coming from, and that it's not bich'dei sheyei'asu without working on Shabbos. But in the general case you don't know that, and I don't see why you have to worry about it just on spec. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 17:45:46 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:45:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said that it is better to daven a > little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that > selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more than 15 > minutes, IIRC. It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time that's been taken from them. Much more important is the speed at which it is said. If the length of time would remain constant, but pages were skipped so that the rest could be said carefully and attentively, THAT'S what Chazal meant by "better to daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Sep 2 13:49:48 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:49:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. ------------------------------- And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's Saturday delivery and you say nothing? KVCT 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 akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 18:08:38 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:08:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: . In the thread "Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im", R' Arie Folger wrote: > By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper > recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused > wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata > Hu E-loheinu. > > In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to > read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next > line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the > opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, > so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the > proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. I can see where some people might read the above, and feel that Rabbi Folger is being subjective and arbitrary in his choices of "proper" and "wrong". I had my brain all psyched up to spend the next hour or so writing a post to explain how he is objectively correct, and then I remembered that we covered this ground four years ago. Anyone who wants to learn more about how the recitation of these piyutim got messed up is strongly invited to review the thread "conservatism in davening" at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CONSERVATISM%20IN%20DAVENING Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mzeldman2 at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 00:33:32 2020 From: mzeldman2 at gmail.com (Moshe Zeldman) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 10:33:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If one should not say ?starting YK I will never...?, then how does that fit with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the vidui is saying ?and I will never do X again?? It sounds difficult to read into the Rambam that he means ?I?m still going to be doing X but I have a plan to eventually stop? On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 4:12 wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > > avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/ > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms > > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Hashem your G-d (Zvi Lampel) > > 2. Re: Hashem your G-d (Micha Berger) > > 3. Re: What to do in Elul? (Micha Berger) > > 4. Re: It's not our fault (Micha Berger) > > 5. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Akiva Miller) > > 6. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Micha Berger) > > 7. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Zev Sero) > > 8. Re: Davening at home on Yamim Noraim (Akiva Miller) > > 9. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Rich, Joel) > > 10. Re: conservatism in davening (Akiva Miller) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:53:18 -0400 > > From: Zvi Lampel > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , > > Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d > > Message-ID: > > < > CAPxEyabfrsb8kDLQzd7BTYpcZcQqOcyaDrjdZbyW8pD-K46QbA at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > > > > > > > > From: Akiva Miller > > > > > > In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today > > > to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) > > > > > > Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > > > > > This may happen elsewhere too, > > > > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher > > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers > > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > > G-d of Avraham, etc. Therefore, the layman refers to the G-d of the Kohane, > > whose biblical role is to teach of Hashem and His Torah and therefore > > conceptualized Hashem more accurately. > > > > (I would have to concede that at first sight this does not work in > > cases where the person bringing the Bikkurim is actually greater than the > > Kohane. One can answer that it's a matter of *lo plug, *using a fixed > > formula for everyone at all times, following the normal situation. Or I > > would modify my explanation to say that the Kohane may not necessarily have > > a higher conceptualization but, through his avodah, a unique one not shared > > by others, which is relevant to the Bikkurim bringer in his role as such.) > > > > but this case stands out because the form > > > changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out > to > > > Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the > contrast?... > > > > > > > I think the above explanation works to explain this. In fact, note that the > > farmer is referring to the G-d of our "ancestors," meaning G-d as > > understood by the avos. > > > > Zvi Lampel > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200901/89f8687e/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:29:01 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller , Zvi Lampel > > > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d > > Message-ID: <20200901192901.GA18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:53:18AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > > >> Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > > > > > This may happen elsewhere too, > > > > > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are > higher > > > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and > refers > > > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > > > G-d of Avraham, etc... > > > > I would have written something very similar, if RAM's email weren't still > > flagged "to do" in my email box when RZL's came in. > > > > However, I wouldn't have used the word "hasagah". I would have talked about > > the need to list "E-lokei Avraham", "E-lokai Yitzchaq" and "E-lokai Yaaqov" > > separately. > > > > To me, it speaks to the idea that the avos each had distinct relationships > > with the Borei. The "G-d of Avraham" was a different relationship than > > the G-d Yitzchaq "had" (kevayakhol). > > > > I don't know how RZL meant the word "hasagah", but to me it speaks to > knowing > > *about* something. As in greater people have greater understandings of what > > G-d is. > > > > I would instead has said that "E-lokekha" is about the G-d the kohein has > > time to relate to more constantly than the farmer does. > > > > And it might also make the Vidui a statement about the farmer's > > relationship with G-d. Rather than who has more relationship, but about > > kidn of relationship. > > > > After all, the kohein may be learning, teaching and doing avodah all > > day, but the farmer teams up with G-d and relies on G-d to produce his > > crop. That's the point of the vidui -- that the G-d of Yetzias Mitzrayim > > gets credit for more day-to-day things my success. Something a kohein > > may only get more vicariously. > > > > So, he's saying to the kohein, "G-d is not only how you relate to Him > > from your ivory tower -- 'Your G-d', realize He also is intimately > > involved in my life and everyday life." > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger If you're going through hell > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. > > Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > PS: Interesting quote my signature generator chose from the perspective > > of being this close to the end of 5780. (Although we must remember, we > > are likely the first generation for whom life is normally so wonderful, > > this year qualified as a notably "bad" one.) > > > > -- > > Micha Berger If you're going through hell > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. > > Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:54:36 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: avodah at aishdas.org, Ken Bloom > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? > > Message-ID: <20200901225436.GC18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:30:40PM -0400, Ken Bloom wrote: > > > Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what > one > > > should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in > > > finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. > > > > I'll give you "or elsewhere". Here's what I do. > > > > 1- > > > > During the year, I try to keep a cheshbon hanefesh. Laziness and momentum > > being what it is, that means that I usually have a journal of the decisions > > and reactions of a few 1 to 2 month stretches during the year. > > > > So, something I do early in Elul is review those, see patterns, what > > changed during the gaps... And trying to compensate changes because I > > was just focused on different things in different parts of the year. > > I then try to mentally fill in the gaps, as I can. And then I make a > > list of those issues in my reactions, decisions and actions that seem > > to have recurred a lot. It's often not the issues I was thinking I was > > failing at before I looked through notes. > > > > For that matter, even if you "just" keep a diary of your responses to the > > week -- not what happened to you, but how you responded to it -- from now > > to RH would give more insight to what habits and middos might really need > > the most attention. > > > > And to make that list, I try for a list of 2 to 4 items that both need the > > most attention and yet balanced with things I can actually tackle. For > > example, I have a long-running battle with ka'as. But it may not be > > the chink in the armor most ready to move. I might want to work on my > > frustration threshold, noting that my temper is very often the sum of > > frustration plus having someone I can pin blame on. > > > > And the plan has to be incremental. Not "starting YK I never will..." > > or "will always", but "starting YK I will take the first step to... > > which is..." > > > > For exmple, not expressing frustration in a given set of situations. > > Or maybe right after work for the first hour I'm home. Or whatever. > > > > 2- > > > > So much for correcting past mistakes. My other step is something > > Bank of America mislabeled Hoshin Planning that I adapted for life. > > > > https://www.aishdas.org/asp/hoshin-plan > > > > 2a- Find a Mission Statement > > > > At this point, I have a mission statement I aspire to live by. > > > > The first year, I didn't. I picked a quote from a sefer that at the time > > (and still) really moved me. Look for something from a seifer (including > > the siddur) that sums up life's mission for you. Is it about deveiqus? > > And if about deveiqus -- what does that mean to you? Knowledge (as per > > the Rambam)? Experiencing the Divine? Having a relationship with Hashem? > > Partnering with Him in His Work -- and what is His Work? Or maybe you see > > it in terms of sheleimus or temimus. But then, what is a person supposed > > to be, that you can talk about being more perfect at being one? Is it > > emulating Hashem? Or bein adam lachaveiro? Or maybe you're on another > > page altogether -- you see the Torah's mission for your life in terms > > of Jewish Nationhood, or humanity. > > > > And I realize many of those will yield different phrasing of nearly the > same > > answer. But only nearly the same. There could be situations where > connotations > > matter and have a nafqa mina lemaaseh. But in any case, it has to be moving > > and inspiring based on the way HQBH made you. > > > > In short -- a sentence or two about how you see what the Torah is telling > > you to be at this point in your life. > > > > After the first year, you tweak it and revise it as you change. > > > > 2b- Drilling down > > > > A Mission Statement is pointless if it doesn't have a way to influence > > action. > > > > In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for the > > firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could help > > reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division. His > > group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc... The idea is that > > there is an individual programmer like myself can be shown how my program > > fits in the team's goal, the group's goal and so on up to the firm's goal > > as written up in the Mission Statement. > > > > Similarly life's Mission Statement. We can divide it and subdivide it > > into managable lists. Maybe three bullet items as top-level goals to > > make the mission statament happen. And 2-4 each for each of those > > goals to make subgoals and so on. > > > > The idea is to get to the point that when you decide to go to the kitchen > > to get a cup of coffee, you have a way to relate that decision to the > > approach to living al pi haTorah that you framed for yourself. > > > > Let me give an example, taken from the above blog page. > > > > Since I wrote a book based on R Shimon's haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher, > > the quote would be no surprise. For that matter, ch. 2 is titled > > "Mission Statement" and is a collection of thoughts about the > > openining sentence of the haqdamah. See the first paragraph of > > the copy in Widen Your Tent sec 1.1, pg 45 of the book or pg 4 of > > https://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf#page=4 > > > > So, my orignal mission statement translates to (it is important to > > be in first person singular): > > [My] greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals > > and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator > > (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according > > to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the > > creations. So too His Will is that [I] walk in His ways. > > > > Now I can divide that into three subgoals: > > - Having a connection to G-d > > - Internalizing His Will > > - Being a conduit of Hashem's Good into the lives of others. > > > > Internalizing His will, for example, was first subdivided into > > - Daily learning (which is what drives projects like AhS Yomi) > > - Daily Mussar work (like what I'm describing in this post), and > > - Regular in-depth learning -- chavrusos, shiurim, etc... > > > > Notice at this point I can start filling in things I can do this year. > > What learning? Which shiurim? As in part 1 -- which middos and what are > > the first months' exercises to chip away at them. (And buying a pretty > > new notebook. Somehow I do best at cheshbon hanefesh when I have a > > kewl new toy to do it with.) > > > > Hopefully, by month end when this "Spiritual Hoshin Plan" is done, I > > can pause in the middle of the workday and be able to say for myself > > that I'm putting up with this irate trader on the phone (I work for a > > Hedge Fund) so that I can pay for tuition (goal 3.2.4.2.5 or some-such), > > I can develop my personal creativity (as per 1.2... as being in the > > image of the Creator is something I view as a Mussar goal), etc.. And > > thereby give sanctity to an otherwise mundane (and stressfull) activity. > > > > And then every year things shift. Both in how I look at the world and in > > what are the pressing issues requiring more attention. Where parenting > > sits in the hierarchy was very different when I started than now that my > > youngest is a teenager. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable > treasure. > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp It preserves health, promotes convalescence, > > Author: Widen Your Tent and helps us cope with adversity. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of > Mishlei" > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:46:48 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] It's not our fault > > Message-ID: <20200901194648.GB18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:45:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > > > I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In > > > the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: > > > > >> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly > > >> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any > > >> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have > > >> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or > > >> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected > > >> on a dangerous road)." > > > > > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > > > > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have > passed > > > through unnoticed? > > > > Does it say that unnoticed strangers are included? > > > > The gemara (Sotah 46b) says (original at > https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.9 ): > > Would it cross our minds that BD were murderers? > > > > Rather [they are saying]: He did not come to us and we dismissed him > > without food. We didn't see him and leave him without accompaniment. > > > > My translation matches the TMS's, minus their parenthetic comments. (Which > > I will now assume is the author's insertions, rather than part of the > > medrash.) > > > > The two phrases "lo ba leyadeinu" and "vera'inhu" seem to me to mean > > the BD are saying that the didn't neglect anyone they knew of. That not > > knowing the person was in town would be one of the reasons they wouldn't > > be guilty. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp better if possible, and of changing himself > for > > Author: Widen Your Tent the better if necessary. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Victor Frankl, Man's search for > Meaning > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:31 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: > > KNCNNA at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on > > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? > > > > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day away. I > > think it is assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know that it won't > > be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. In contrast, > > if I request Monday delivery, that would be okay, even though I know that > > they'll be working for me on Shabbos, because it was their choice to work > > on Saturday rather than Sunday. > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/5837fd1d/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:11:20 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: <20200902141120.GA27483 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:00:31AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus > on > > > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? > > > > Well, if there isn't a contracted delivery date of Shabbos, then it's > > their choice whether to do melakhah for you on Shabbos, Friday or Sunday. > > The package could sit around in a transfer facility for 25 hours while > > they deal with more urgent packages if it's not the delivery date. The > > choice is theirs. > > > > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > > > > I guess in the case of (eg) 3 day delivery, since it wouldn't violate the > > contract to get it there in 2, someone might argue that you aren't > > asking them to do the delivery on Shabbos. But I don't know if mutar > > alternatives matter even when they're implausible. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his > fellow > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew > worries > > Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's > stomach. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:46:49 -0400 > > From: Zev Sero > > To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: <66cf413b-bbfa-c02e-885f-8a8bb7e152ce at sero.name> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > > On 2/9/20 8:00 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day > > > away. I think it is?assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know > > > that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during > Shabbos. > > > > I agree, *if* you know where it's coming from, and that it's not > > bich'dei sheyei'asu without working on Shabbos. But in the general case > > you don't know that, and I don't see why you have to worry about it just > > on spec. > > > > -- > > Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer > > zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:45:46 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim > > Message-ID: > > < > CABiM0c+1patT7b5FcLCxbn8wuZsCXzmoGyC846J6cQxP-9JJjQ at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > > > > > Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said that it is better to daven a > > > little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that > > > selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more than 15 > > > minutes, IIRC. > > > > It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing > > to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better > > than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time > > that's been taken from them. > > > > Much more important is the speed at which it is said. If the length of time > > would remain constant, but pages were skipped so that the rest could be > > said carefully and attentively, THAT'S what Chazal meant by "better to > > daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without." > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/455f462f/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 9 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:49:48 +0000 > > From: "Rich, Joel" > > To: 'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group' > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: > > < > CY4PR02MB25993558995FE1F789868116BF2F0 at CY4PR02MB2599.namprd02.prod.outlook.com > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > > ------------------------------- > > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's > Saturday delivery and you say nothing? > > KVCT > > 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 10 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:08:38 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] conservatism in davening > > Message-ID: > > < > CABiM0cJ4esqYBS9zWh5bP1UnGZYs67zrTwZ+HeYOcVVLWc9ULw at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > In the thread "Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im", R' Arie Folger wrote: > > > > > By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper > > > recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused > > > wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata > > > Hu E-loheinu. > > > > > > In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to > > > read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next > > > line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the > > > opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, > > > so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the > > > proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. > > > > I can see where some people might read the above, and feel that Rabbi > > Folger is being subjective and arbitrary in his choices of "proper" and > > "wrong". I had my brain all psyched up to spend the next hour or so writing > > a post to explain how he is objectively correct, and then I remembered that > > we covered this ground four years ago. > > > > Anyone who wants to learn more about how the recitation of these piyutim > > got messed up is strongly invited to review the thread "conservatism in > > davening" at > > > https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CONSERVATISM%20IN%20DAVENING > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/fc503c3c/attachment.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Avodah mailing list > > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah > > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 38, Issue 72 > > ************************************** > > -- ----------------------------- Moshe Zeldman Israel: (+972) 54 256 2888 US/Canada: 647 580 8965 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 18:34:46 2020 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:34:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d Message-ID: In Avodah V38n72, RZL noted: > This may happen elsewhere too < The first example which came into my mind when I saw RAMiller's message was a phrase in the P'Zachor *haftara* -- see I Sam 15:15. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 3 09:09:03 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 12:09:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <15e6bfd6-3399-dbb5-a721-6671f0b31da4@sero.name> On 2/9/20 4:49 pm, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > ------------------------------- > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's Saturday delivery and you say nothing? That should be fine. It's their decision, not yours. You told them you don't mind if they deliver it on Sunday. It's the same as dropping something off at the cleaners right before Shabbos and telling them you want it by 6 AM on Sunday. Since they could work on it all night Motzei Shabbos, you're fine, even though you know they will choose not to. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 18:13:02 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 21:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul Message-ID: . R' Moshe Zeldman asked: > If one should not say "starting YK I will never...", then how > does that fit with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the > vidui is saying "and I will never do X again"? > It sounds difficult to read into the Rambam that he means "I'm > still going to be doing X but I have a plan to eventually stop" Yes, the Rambam does say that at the beginning of Perek 1. But Perek 2 is all about less-than-ideal sorts of teshuva. I concede that I didn't notice the Rambam explicitly mentioning this weaning as a legitimate less-than-ideal form of teshuva. But still, it is hard for me to imagine that he would invalidate someone who said, "I did it, and I should not have done it, and I feel sorry that I did it, and in the future I will do it less than I used to." And even if the Rambam *would* say that such a person has *not* done teshuva, remember the context in which this idea was suggested: a person who has repeatedly found this particular aveira unusually difficult to conquer. Imagine further, that this person succeeds in a slow elimination of this aveira, and after many years - decades perhaps - he has finally conquered it. Such a person would certainly be no less of a Baal Teshuva than the one who the Rambam described in the middle section of halacha 2:1: "Even if he didn't do teshuva until his elderly days, and when it was impossible for his to do what he used to do, even though it's not an excellent teshuva, it still helps him, and he is a Baal Teshuva." Please note that this person described by the Rambam did not even begin regretting his sins until he was too old to do them. That's NOT the case we're discussing. We're discussing someone who still has to battle the yetzer hara. I can't help but wonder if this person, who executed a long, slow, but ultimately successful plan, might get the mitzva of Teshuva retroactively, to the beginning of that plan, maybe even according to the Rambam. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 10:43:29 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:43:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200904174329.GB3095@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:33:32AM +0300, Moshe Zeldman via Avodah wrote: > If one should not say "starting YK I will never...", then how does that fit > with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the vidui is saying "and I > will never do X again"? I'm going to shift topics a little from what the Rambam says should be done to what experience (and 20th cent Mussar sefarim) has shown does work. Lots of diets I promised myself I would start right after the chagim never happened. So, I don't think there is much commitment in "starting YK I will never..." Maybe we should be following the incremental approach... Promising now to take steps that by Yom Kippur I would be up to not doing X again, and by Chanukah not doing X-1, and by Pesach, X-2, and by next YK... Again, not claiming you can read that into the Rambam. But it does fit the Rambam's requirements for vidui while still having more chance of success than expecitng to be able to permanently change habits and character on a dime. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. http://www.aishdas.org/asp The purpose of life Author: Widen Your Tent is to give it away. -- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -- Pablo Picasso From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 10:58:49 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:58:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200904175849.GC3095@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:45:46PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing > to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better > than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time > that's been taken from them. Speaking specifically of "echad hamarbeh. ve'echad hamam'it..." and not trying to fit more services into the same number of rooms in the same morning or other pandemic issues... The idea is usually invoked for those of us who abbreviate Pesuqei deZimra in order to say fewer peraqim of Tehillim in the same time the minyan is saying more of them. Not to save time, but to spend more thought and similar time on fewer actions (in this case, speech). BUT... The past century has seen a HUGE shrinkage (sorry for the oxymoron) in attention spans. So, the more likely alternative of 15 minutes of rushed mumbeling may be better than an hour of mumbling while one's mind wanders. For many people, even on Yamim Noraim. May even have a net minus in the minimal kavanah of a rushed mumble. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] http://www.aishdas.org/asp isn't complete with being careful in the laws Author: Widen Your Tent of Passover. One must also be very careful in - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:48:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 14:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20200904184852.GD3095@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:49:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >> But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after >> hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's > Saturday delivery and you say nothing? Can it depend on who makes the decision? What if I ask one set of people to deliver my package, but another set of people make it impossible for them to get into the warehouse / vehicle on Sunday? And if I could guess as much that even if they wanted to deliver on Sunday it's not really in their power to do so? :-)BBii! -Micha From seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:25 2020 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2020 10:31:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avos - Shepherds Message-ID: The Avos ? Forefathers - (and Moshe Rabbeinu and Dovid HaMelech and others) were shepherds. Did they eat sheep? The few times when eating from the flock is mentioned, it seems to be goats (eg, Rivka feeding Yitzchak). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Sep 6 13:24:42 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:24:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Use a Public Grill? Message-ID: >From https://www.kosher.com/lifestyle/can-one-use-a-public-grill-1259 [https://www.kosher.com/resized/open_graph/s/h/shutterstock_442567648_banner.jpg] Can One Use a Public Grill? | Lifestyle | Kosher.com Shailah of the Week by Rabbi Zvi Nussbaum Rabbinic Coordinator, Kosher Hotline Administrator for the Orthodox Union Since a campground grill has been used to cook non-kosher foods (non-kosher meats and fish...), it may not be used unless it is properly kashered. The only way to kasher a gr... www.kosher.com Since a campground grill has been used to cook non-kosher foods (non-kosher meats and fish...), it may not be used unless it is properly kashered. The only way to kasher a grill top is with libun gamur (heating until the entire surface of the grill top rack becomes red hot). This can be accomplished by submerging the surface of the grill into burning charcoal. Even if the grill was used within the past 24 hours to cook non-kosher, and even if the grill had not been cleaned, it may still be kashered in this manner, since the intense heat will burn up all non-kosher residue and taste. There is no need to tovel the grill (immerse the grill in a mikvah), since it does not belong to you. It is owned by the park. Instead of kashering the grill, an easier option is to bring along your own grill top and a couple of bricks. If the non-kosher grill can be lifted out of the way, the kosher grill may be put in its place, balanced on the bricks. If you purchase a new grill top, it must be toveled before it is used. A third option is to double wrap your food with two layers of aluminum foil. Once properly wrapped, they may be placed directly on the non-kosher grill. In this case, it is better to clean the grill top first, or let the coals burn off the grease, before placing the double-wrapped food on top. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Sep 6 13:49:28 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:49:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pas Yisroel Message-ID: See https://www.crcweb.org/Pas%20Yisroel%20article%20.pdf Pas Yisroel during Aseres Y?mei Teshuvah Pas Yisroel By: Rabbi Dovid Cohen Administrative Rabbinic Coordinator, cRc Background In the times of the Mishnah, and possible even earlier, Chazal www.crcweb.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Sep 7 04:02:28 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:02:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] 10PM Slichot Message-ID: Anyone know why R' Moshe in O"C 2:105 didn't suggest pre-shacharit slichot rather than 10Pm slichot as a stand in for chatzot (midnight) slichot on the first night of slichot when there was a clear and present danger? Kvct 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 michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 11:26:57 2020 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:26:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another example, seen via this week's ShMOT: Deu 31 :26. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolberg at yebo.co.za Mon Sep 7 03:41:23 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 12:41:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 Message-ID: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> "And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. And so paskened the Geonei Olam for about [the last] eighty years. And this is the essential halocha." I have several questions about this. 1. Surely the use of Yiddish translations was very common and accepted? 2. Is this a response to the Reform use of German translations? 3. While the translation of the Shema might be problematic, translation of shemoneh esrei and brochas is surely not the same issue? From zev at sero.name Tue Sep 8 08:01:13 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 11:01:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10PM Slichot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0c0a2053-cf70-2689-d048-d3d3a7c9eab4@sero.name> On 7/9/20 7:02 am, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Anyone know why R? Moshe in O?C 2:105 didn?t suggest pre-shacharit > slichot rather than 10Pm slichot as a stand in for chatzot (midnight) > slichot on the first night of slichot when there was a clear and present > danger? The teshuva isn't about the first night, it's about all the days of selichos, and the situation is that it's impossible to do it either at midnight *or* before dawn. He takes it for granted that selichos must be said at night, Kumi Roni Valayla, and at an Eis Ratzon, which means any time between midnight and dawn, and says the minhag to do it at the end of the night, before dawn, is for convenience. So he reluctantly allows it after the first third of the night, with the proviso that it must be publicised that this is a hora'as sha'ah. Why doesn't he even consider doing it in the morning after daylight? I can think of two possibilities: Perhaps because selichos must be at night; or perhaps because people have to go to work and can't fit selichos in at their normal time for shacharis, and it's already posited in the question that for some reason they can't start earlier. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781 zev at sero.name "May this year and its curses end May a new year and its blessings begin" From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 11:43:48 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 14:43:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dates from Ancient Genes and Koseves Message-ID: <20200908184348.GA9440@aishdas.org> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/07/world/middleeast/israel-judean-dates-agriculture.html KETURA, Israel The plump, golden-brown dates hanging in a bunch just above the sandy soil were finally ready to pick. They had been slowly ripening in the desert heat for months. But the young tree on which they grew had a much more ancient history sprouting from a 2,000-year-old seed retrieved from an archaeological site in the Judean wilderness. Quick, can someone get the volume of these things before Yom Kippur? Kidding aside.... Do people think that the shiur of a kekoseves should be re-assessed, if necessary, based on this newly available data? RYBS, and his version of R Chaim's argument against Radziner tekheiles (or his argument against assuming orez = rice) would imply we don't. Halakhah can only be founded upon mesorah, not scientific data. My summary of that section of Nefesh haRav is at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n073.shtml#12 Anyone want to provide meqoros for other opinions? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... http://www.aishdas.org/asp ... but you're the pilot. Author: Widen Your Tent - R' Zelig Pliskin - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Sep 8 17:48:57 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 00:48:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] directed donations Message-ID: Question someone I know got concerning a contribution: Do you want your donation to the shul to be ?????? ???? ??? Response: I?d go with anonymous and pray that hkbh directs his accountant to allocate it to where it?s most needed. As a matter fact maybe that should be the inscription Thoughts? Kvct 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 llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 9 05:50:41 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 12:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 565:5) writes that the ?Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim? (thirteen attributes of mercy, Shemos 34:6-7) may not be recited unless there is a minyan. When these pesukim are recited in the context of prayer, they have the elevated status of a ?davar she?bikedusha,? like Kaddish or Kedusha, that may only be said in the presence of a minyan. The Mishnah Berurah (581:4) writes that Selichos that mention the Yud Gimmel Middos may be said, provided that those lines are skipped. If one prefers to say the Yud Gimmel Middos, he may do so if he recites them with the trop (cantillation) used for krias haTorah, as that indicates that it is not being recited as a tefillah (M?B 565:12). Mishnah Berurah also adds that any Selichos that are written in Aramaic should be skipped. The basis for this is the Gemara (Sotah 33a), in which Rebbi Yochanan states that angels do not deliver prayers that were recited in Aramaic, but when praying with a minyan one does not need the assistance of angels. Hashem?s presence is in the midst of the minyan and there is no need for angelic intervention. The Mishnah Berurah concludes, if there is no minyan at the beginning of Selichos, Kaddish is not said after Ashrei. Instead, the group should begin reciting Selichos. When the tenth man arrives, the congregation should recite three pesukim together, recite Kaddish and then continue from where they left off. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Sep 10 05:44:42 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:44:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When to Say Se;lichos Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. What is preferable? To wake up early and recite Selichos before dawn (a.k.a. alos hashachar, which is 72 minutes before sunrise), or to stay up late and recite Selichos after chatzos (midnight)? What about saying selichos after alos or after neitz hachama (sunrise)? A. Rav Yitzchak Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Yoma 22a) writes that the preferred time to recite Selichos is before dawn. This can be inferred from the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 3:4) who writes that it is customay to awake at night and recite Selichos until the morning. In addition, Mishnah Berurah (581:1) writes that the end of the night is an eis rotzon (a propitious time when G-d is receptive to prayer), implying that the early mornoing is the most appropriate time for Selichos. Finally, the She?arim Metzuyanim B?Halacah (Yoma 22a) notes that Selichos recited in the early morning is more effective, since it is recited through greater sacrifice; it is more difficult to wake up early than to stay up late. May Selichos be rected after sunrise? Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Divrei Si?ach, vol. 134) holds that it is preferable to recite Selichos after Chatzos than to recite Selichos later in the day after sunrise. On the otherhand, Rav Elyashav and Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach take an oposite opinion and write that it is better to recite Selichos in the daytime (even after sunrise) than to say it after chatzos (quoted in MB Dirshu MB, 581:1). Similiary, the Aruch Hashulchan writes that it has been customary to say selichos in the morning after sunrise for many generations. On the other hand, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt?l (Igros Moshe OC, 2:105) writes that kabalistically, the period after chatzos is as much an eis ratzon as early dawn, and for this reason, for many generations, it has been customary to recite Selichos at night after chatzos. This is also the opinion of the Minchas Elazar (the previous Munkatcher Rebbi), as recorded in Divrei Torah (141:76). Even those who recomend saying selichos in early morning before sunrise agree that on the first night of Selichos, on Motzei Shabbos, it is preferable to recite Selichos after Chatzos. This is because we wish to combine the merit of Shabbos together with the first Selichos. Therefore, we begin Selichos after Chatzos, and do not wait for the early morning (Chashukei Chemed, ibid.). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 15:12:12 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:12:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 In-Reply-To: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> References: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> Message-ID: <20200910221212.GB12180@aishdas.org> Sidenote: This se'if was recently studied by Arukh haShulchan Yomi. If you want to join us learning AhS Yomi, see the tools -- calendar, text, RYGB's YouTube playlist -- at http://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi ! AhS Yomi covers OC and the applicable portions of YD. (From egg spots to aveilus.) On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:41:23PM +0200, wolberg via Avodah wrote: >> And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the Shema and >> Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. >> And so paskened the Geonei Olam for about [the last] eighty years. And >> this is the essential halocha." ... > 1. Surely the use of Yiddish translations was very common and accepted? For women, yes. In fact, there is a script called Vaibrteitch because translations were in general considered for women. ("Women's Translation". "Teitch" evolved from the language name "Deutch".) Vaibrteitch is different than Rashi script. See examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaybertaytsh > 2. Is this a response to the Reform use of German translations? Likely. That bit about how they used to know Hebrew better is suspiciously post-facto sounding. Maybe when translating to another Semitic language, or to Greek using a millenia old tradition of Hebrew to Greek equivalences, we could have done better than we can to English. However, 600 years ago, translating to German, French or Spanish... No matter how well you know Hebrew, there is simply no close parallel to translate words to. A personal favorite when teaching Mussar is "yir'ah". Yir'ah is a range from awe to fear. Maybe the closest is "awareness of the magnitude of what you're facing" -- whether with admiration (awe) or thinking about risk (fear) or in another way. But because we are thinking "awe or fear" instead of a single concept, we cannot think about the middah of yir'as Shamayim in a fully authentic way. It's not two thing with an "or", or with a second thought about how they're related. It's a single territory that should be part of our gut's language about how we're feeling at a given point in time. In any case, it is true that real translation is impossible. I would faster *guess* that a machloqes about how close a translation may be got closed because the response to Reform forced our hand to choose one shitah over the other. > 3. While the translation of the Shema might be problematic, translation > of shemoneh esrei and brochas is surely not the same issue? Well, we cannot translation "Barukh Atah Hashem", at least not "barukh" or "Hashem" in any precise way. So, maybe not. I am not sure people really know what they mean when they say "blessed". But what is Barukh? - Source of increase - Maximally increased - May You -- in the form of the expression of Your Will in this world -- be incresed - An intentional ambiguity of all of the above? And sheim havayah pronounced as Adnus... - The Atemporal - The All-Compassionate - The Transcendent - The L-rd of All Etc... I would faster think the baqashos would be okay more than berakhos in general. Or maybe the body of the berakhah until the chasimah. As long as the translation is close enough so that it opens and wraps up with me'ein hachasimah. But lemaaseh, the AhS says that's not what "we hold". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. http://www.aishdas.org/asp - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:50:27 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Torah Musings] Why Did the Holocaust Happen Message-ID: <20200911175027.GA23887@aishdas.org> A survey by R Gil Student. https://www.torahmusings.com/2020/09/why-did-the-holocaust-happen/ (And a couple of the comments on his post.) :-)BBii! -Micha Torah Musing Why Did the Holocaust Happen? Posted by: Gil Student Posts Sep 7, 2020 As I reviewed the weekly Torah reading for this past Shabbos, which includes the tochekhah (Deut. 28), I was taken back to my teenage years, reading it one Saturday or Sunday afternoon and seeing Jewish history in it. To a non-religious Jewish teenager in the 1980's who grew up among survivors, the question of God in the Holocaust was not a faith issue that could be ignored. Reading the biblical text with minimal commentary (I think I used S.L. Gordon's secular commentary), I saw a prophecy that sin would lead to the kind of inhuman devastation seen in the Holocaust, a prediction that was fulfilled thousands of years later. To me, the Holocaust was not an impediment to faith but a convincing proof of Judaism's truth claims. Not everyone sees it that way. Many are offended by the very claim that the Holocaust was a divine punishment, although often due to objections that miss important discussions in traditional Jewish literature which we will mention briefly below. The issues are so sensitive, and during the 1970's and 1980's in particular the denominational conflicts were so strong, that unnecessarily forceful rhetoric turned an issue of faith into a weapon. In my opinion, a legitimate theological view has been dismissed due to heightened sensitivities and denominational politics. I. Five Approaches to the Holocaust Modern Orthodoxy has developed two main theologies of the Holocaust: 1) Hester Panim - God hid His face, turned away, and let mankind unleash wanton violence. R. Norman Lamm takes this approach in his [51]"The Face of God: Thoughts of the Holocaust". It is important to note that God hides His face (Deut. 31:17) due to Jewish sins (ibid., 16). (Some claim that brief mentions of hester panim by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik in his Kol Dodi Dofek constitute his adoption of this approach, but see R. Reuven Ziegler, Majesty and Humility, p. 277 n. 4, where he dismisses this interpretation.) 2) Free Will - God allows mankind the free will to sin, which includes the ability to murder and torture others. R. Eliezer Berkovits advocates this approach in his Faith After the Holocaust. The alternative approaches generally discussed are: 3) Anti-Zionism - The Satmar Rebbe's argument that Zionism led to the Holocaust, in his [52]Al Ha-Ge'ulah Ve-Al Ha-Temurah. 4) Zionism - The Religious Zionist argument that the Holocaust paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel. This view is attributed to R. Zvi Yehudah Kook (see Aviezer Ravitzky, Messianism, Zionism and Jewish Religious Radicalism, pp. 126-128). 5) Secularization - R. Avigdor Miller popularized the view that the assimilation and secularization of Jews in the 150 years prior to the Holocaust resulted in this punishment. R. Norman Lamm quotes this from R. Miller's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 278-279) and you can find quotes on the subject by searching [53]TorasAvigdor.org for the word "Holocaust". (A reader informed me that R. Miller has a book on the subject was posthumously published -- [54]A Divine Madness: Rabbi Avigdor Miller's Defense of Hashem in the Matter of the Holocaust.) II. The Slabodka Holocaust Theology I would like to explore here the approach of a Holocaust victim, Rav Avraham Grodzinski, the mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva who perished in 1944. I will be blending in another important view of Rav Grodzinski, along with his son-in-law Rav Shlomo Wolbe's presentation of Rav Grodzinski's approach in Rav Wolbe's (anonymously published) book of outreach speeches given in the wake of the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars (originally published as Bein Sheshes Le-Asor, later republished as Olam Ha-Yedidus). Rav Grodzinski's approach is most similar to that of Rav Miller, which is not surprising since the latter studied in the Slabodka yeshiva. However, I am not sure that Rav Miller developed it in the same way as Rav Grodzinski and he certainly did not present it in the same sensitive way as Rav Wolbe. [55]Rav Avraham Grodzinski succeeded Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel ("The Alter") as mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva, when the latter moved to Israel and established a branch of the yeshiva in Chevron. Rav Grodzinski (a brother-in-law of Rav Ya'akov Kamenetsky) stayed in Europe to the end, suffering a martyr's death in the Kovno Ghetto in 1944. He sent his writings to his students in Israel, who together with [56]his surviving sons published them in 1963 as Toras Avraham, a brilliant book of profound Mussar thought presented in the style of Talmudic thinking. [57]Rav Shlomo Wolbe first published Bein Sheshes Le-Asor anonymously in 1975, although it is clearly in his style and was posthumously republished by the foundation to publish his writings. The book consists mainly of his outreach lectures throughout Israel, spurred by the renewed interest in Israel awakened by the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War. The chapter on the Holocaust, however, was prepared for a class at the Bais Ya'akov of Jerusalem (commonly known as BJJ). I assume that Rav Wolbe included this chapter because he believes that this issue is important to those seeking to grow in faith. Rav Wolbe begins with a story emphasizing the importance of finding meaning in your suffering. It is obvious, he says, that we must help others by alleviating their suffering in any way possible. However, faith teaches us that there is meaning in suffering, a lesson to be learned. Rav Wolbe continues that even when God hides His face from us, there are no accidents. Therefore we must examine our lives to see what God wants from us. This is true not just for individuals but for nations as a whole. Throughout, Rav Wolbe quotes mainly biblical verses to prove his points, although I can think of many Talmudic passages that would do likewise. The believer is strengthened from the fact that destruction and suffering do not occur by happenstance but rather come guided by divine providence after ample warning. The traditional Jewish texts of the Bible, Talmud and Midrash warn us of the horrific consequences of sin. Rav Wolbe highlights in particular the language of the Gemara (Kesubos 111a), while sidestepping the specific Talmudic context, of "If not, I (God) will abandon your flesh like the gazelles and like the hinds of the field." Due to sin, Jewish flesh will be hunted like animals. Nobody, Rav Wolbe continues, is allowed to decide for what reason the Holocaust happened to us unless he personally suffered himself. Only a victim can conduct this examination of the generation. As we will later see, Rav Grodzinski did not necessarily agree with this. Perhaps Rav Wolbe set this condition for rhetorical purposes. Regardless, with that introduction, Rav Wolbe then invokes Rav Grodzinski's Holocaust theology. III. Suffering and Sins The introduction to Toras Avraham (1978 second edition, p. 17) describes how Rav Grodzinski discussed at length with his students in the Kovno Ghetto the spiritual causes of the Holocaust. He listed twelve primary sins, or areas where we were lacking, and exhorted them to strengthen the Jewish people in these areas if they survived the war. Rav Grodzinski wrote all these talks down but the writings were lost in the war. [58]Rav Mordechai Zuckerman survived and recorded the twelve lackings from memory. They are: 1) Faith 2) Shabbos observance 3) Family purity 4) Kosher food 5) Charging interest 6) Torah education of children 7) Wasting time that could be used for Torah study 8) Loving your fellow Jew 9) Lovingkindness (chesed) 10) Making do with less (histapkus) 11) Trust in God 12) The land of Israel (I don't know what this means in this context). I do not know if Rav Grodzinski applied Talmudic statements to his contemporary events, such as "seven punishments come to the world due to seven sins" (Avos 5:8), or if he looked at specific types of suffering and found the "measure for measure" in them, or a combination of both methods or something else. Because his writings were lost, we lack insight into his specific methodology. Regardless, I appreciate his general approach, as described below, and recognize that he used it to reach specific conclusions, which I find worthy as areas to strengthen ourselves. Rav Wolbe adds to the above list the general secularization of the Jewish people that began with Emancipation and continued with the Jewish Enlightenment. This was accompanied by widespread abandonment of Jewish faith and practice. Historically, he claims, every period of "enlightenment" has ended with Jewish tragedy. The Holocaust continues that historical cycle. I believe that Rav Grodzinski's Holocaust theology is intimately connected with his theology of suffering. In a series of lectures in late 1936 and early 1937, Rav Grodzinski explored the unique value of suffering to the religious personality. It might be worthwhile noting that since childhood, Rav Grodzinski suffered great physical pain that he overcame through sheer force of personality. Rav Grodzinski begins by pointing out what we lost as a nation and as individuals by the cessation of prophecy (roughly) after the destruction of the First Temple. The prophets informed us of our sins, directed us to the proper behavior, guided us to spiritual recovery. When prophecy ceased, we lost that guidance but were not left without any religious compass. Suffering shows us where we must focus. God punishes us measure for measure. Therefore, we can look at our suffering, our punishment, as a guide for where we need to improve our behavior. To some degree, suffering is more effective than prophecy. "The removal of Achashverosh's ring (for the sealing of Haman's decree) was more effective than the forty-eight prophets and the seven prophetesses who prophesied on behalf of the Jewish people. They all were unable to bring the Jewish people to repentance, but the removal of Achashverosh's ring brought them to repentance" (Megillah 14a). Additionally, suffering empowers you to find your own path to redemption, without the need for a third party, a prophet. Suffering not only directs you to improve but encourages you, offers you the incentive of freedom from suffering. Rav Grodzinski adds (p. 54) that suffering guides not only the sinners but others, as well. When we see someone suffering and understand the sin that caused it, we learn a very persuasive lesson about what behavior we should avoid. This is true also about the educational value of nations making flawed decisions that seal their fate. The suffering of nations teaches us what national mistakes to avoid (cf. Zephaniah 3:6-7). In Rav Grodzinski's view, a wise and learned person, steeped in Talmud and Midrash, can examine the suffering of the Holocaust to identify its underlying spiritual causes and learn from them. After conducting a careful examination, Rav Grodzinski reached his conclusions (unfortunately, his thought process was recorded in writing but lost) and beseeched his students to work to fix these spiritual problems. IV. Common Objections 1) Rav Wolbe concludes with a common question: Why did righteous people suffer in the Holocaust? He quotes Rav Grodzinski as explaining that the more righteous someone is, the harsher he is judged. R. Akiva suffered from Roman torture and murder because, we are told, "this intention arose before" God (Menachos 29b). What is that intention? Rashi (Gen. 1:1) says, "At first God intended to create the world under the attribute of strict justice, but He realized that the world could not thus endure and therefore gave priority to mercy combined with justice." R. Akiva and the other righteous individuals are judged with the initial intent, pure justice. Even without Rav Wolbe's interpretation of this passage, we see elsewhere that the righteous are judged by a hairbreadth (Yevamos 121b), meaning that what for others constitutes a minor infraction for someone righteous is a big sin. Additionally, once God sends a punishment to a group (city, country, nation), that punishment applies to everyone whether righteous or wicked (Bava Kamma 60a). That is part of being a people -- our fates are connected. In fact, the Gemara (Shabbos 55a) says that when God punishes the Jewish people, He starts with the most righteous. 2) Were the people killed in the Holocaust guilty? - Even though no one can claim to be free from guilt, it is hard to imagine that anyone committed a sin so heinous as to deserve the horrors of the Holocaust. However, a sin committed by many is worse than a sin committed by an individual. Additionally, God is patient and allows time -- generations -- for the Jewish people to return before punishing us. When the punishment arrives, it is not just for that generation but for the previous generations as well (Ex. 20:5; Or Ha-Chaim, ad loc.). The generation of the Holocaust lived at the end of God's long wait for a return that never arrived. We do not stand in judgement of those who died or suffered in the Holocaust, nor do we say that they are more deserving than people before or after them. According to this understanding, they were individuals who lived at a time in history when the Jewish people was punished for its collective sins over many generations, for its long drift away from traditional Jewish observance. 3) Were the Nazis right to kill Jews? - This question is natural but odd. Natural because it emerges from the overall approach but odd because it has been discussed for centuries. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Teshuvah 6:5) asks why Pharaoh and the Egyptians were punished for enslaving the Jews when it was part of God's plan as told to Avraham (Gen. 15:13). Rambam answers that someone was destined to enslave the Jews but the Egyptians were guilty for being the ones to do it and therefore suffered ten plagues and drowning at the sea (see also Ramban, Gen. 15:14; I discuss it [59]here). May the Nazis suffer a hundred times ten plagues for their part in the Holocaust. None of this detracts from God's role in punishing the Jewish people through the guilty Egyptian hands. 4) What value is there in looking for other people's sins? - As discussed above, Rav Grodzinski sees value in learning what to fix. If we do not learn the spiritual lessons of history, we are condemned to repeat them. Additionally, Ramban (Sha'ar Ha-Gemul in Kisvei Ha-Ramban, vol. 2 p. 281; I discuss it [60]here) offers four reasons to engage in theodicy, even if ultimately you cannot fully understand God's ways. First, we benefit from gaining a better understanding of God's ways. More wisdom is good. Metaphysical knowledge, understanding God's actions, is always positive. Second, studying the ways in which God rewards and punishes people strengthens our belief. Our continuous exploration of God's ways reinforces within us His existence and His providence. Our greater understanding affords us confidence that explanations exist to even what we do not understand. Additionally, concludes Ramban, the obligations to fear and love God include a requirement to accept His judgment, to explain and justify God's decisions. This is a mitzvah of tziduk ha-din. 4) Is it sacrilegious to try to understand God's justice? - No, it is a mitzvah, as per the previous point. It also is not insulting to speak of punishment due to sins. When the Shakh writes about the Chmelnitzki massacres, he refers to what happened to us "due to our sins." When the Ra'avan writes about the First Crusade ([61]Kuntres Gezeiras Tatn"u), he specifically invokes the tokhecha, saying that they experienced all of the biblical curses. This is a strain of, if not the dominant strain in, traditional Judaism. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Ta'aniyos 1:3) calls it cruelty to fail to look for the sins that led to divine punishment. 5) Can anyone know God's reasons absent prophecy? - Rav Yitzchak Hutner ("Holocaust" -- A Study of the Term, and the Epoch it is Meant to Describe" in [62]Jewish Observer, October 1977, p. 9) writes: "One would have to be a navi or Tanna (a prophet or Talmudic sage) to claim knowledge of the specific reasons for what befell us; anyone on a lesser plane claiming to do so tramples in vain upon the bodies of the kedoshim who died Al Kiddush Hashem [as holy martyrs] and misuses the power to interpret and understand Jewish history." On the other hand, this same Rav Hutner gave an approbation to Rav Wolbe's book quoted above. Furthermore, it seems that Rav Grodzinski, himself a holy martyr, felt his method of analyzing suffering serves the function of prophecy in today's age. 6) Why does this usually ring so hollow? - When the Holocaust is discussed without sensitivity and empathy, the proposed explanations sound shallow and offensive. In my opinion, that is why Rav Wolbe began with a long introduction and invoked the conclusions of a Holocaust victim, Rav Grodzinski. Furthermore, many of the people offering explanations today either are, or sound like or are portrayed by the media as being, self-righteous fools. It is hard to take seriously someone whose analysis is shallow and only validates his regular message. If your answer to everything is female immodesty, you lack credibility to offer a thoughtful and nuanced answer. Rav Grodzinski does not face this challenge but some people may unfairly associate him with others who suffer that problem. There may be other reasons that this approach often rings hollow but these should suffice for our purposes. Personally, I benefited from this tokhecha approach which I intuited as a non-religious teenager. I am not certain which sins caused the Holocaust but I am open to honest, sensitive speculation as a way of learning from history, which I believe is that in which Rav Grodzinski and Rav Wolbe engaged. If this approach had been deemed theologically unacceptable, despite its impeccable pedigree, I don't know if I would be religious today. In my opinion, it is a shame to remove this approach from our theological toolbox due to politics and rhetoric from decades ago. ... 3 comments 1. Kovner Sep 8, 20 at 6:44 am You missed out on one more important approach. Read the classic introduction to Zichron Kodosh written by the author of Nesivos Sholom - RSN Barzovsky zt"l. The sefer was published once, and never reprinted. Also, the Toras Avrohom was published by a son - not sons - of RAG. Only one son did not perish. ... 3. Kovner Sep 9, 20 at 7:05 pm I'm not skilled to do so accurately and faithfully. Never the less, I'll venture to say that the central point is that it's all part of Hashem's Grand Plan of human history, and is beyond our comprehension. And therefore the most appropriate response is "Vayidom Aharon"... ... Copyright 2020 All rights reserved References 51. https://merrimackvalleyhavurah.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/the-face-of-god-thoughts-on-the-holocaust/ 52. http://www.mysatmar.com/docs/shite_hakdoshe/ 53. https://torasavigdor.org/ 54. https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Madness-Avigdor-Millers-Holocaust/dp/B00EF68V9C 55. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Grodzinski 56. https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/54188/harav-yitzchok-grodzinsky-recalls-the-last-moments-of-hagon-rav-elchonon-wasserman-hyd-before-his-murder.html 57. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Wolbe 58. https://www.jdn.co.il/breakingnews/1230669/ 59. https://www.torahmusings.com/2016/05/were-the-egyptians-right/ 60. https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/10/why-theodicy/ 61. https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34838&st=&pgnum=2&hilite= 62. https://agudah.org/the-jewish-observer-vol-12-no-8-october-1977chesvan-5738/ From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Sat Sep 12 10:18:12 2020 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 17:18:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Has anyone seen litereature about the following Issues when Davening BiYehidut (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. (2) If one says the piyut of the Avoda after his private Musaf shmoneh Esrei, can he fall korim, what about Aleinu Shanah Tovah, Beri'ah u-metukah! Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Sep 13 20:36:29 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2020 23:36:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 Message-ID: . asked several questions about Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4, who wrote: > And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the > Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. Spoiler alert: I have several problems with this Aruch Hashulchan, and I suspect that (as R' Wolberg suspects), the AhS had ulterior reasons for writing this (such as the inroads that Reform was making via their translations) and could not have really meant it l'halacha. In any case, there are other poskim who do allow translations. I will begin by giving my own translation of this section of AhS, so that if anyone disagrees with my understanding of what he said, they can bring it to my attention. I will break it into several numbered pieces for easier reference. >>> 1) Know that this [halacha] that Krias Shema and Tefilla may be said in any language - this is certainly when one translates really the entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh into the other language. For otherwise, it would not constitute Shema and Tefilla. 2) According to that, this law does not apply except in the time of the Mishna and Gemara, for they knew our language well, and they were able to translate it. 3) But now, it is well-known that we have a number of uncertainties in explaining the words, and the commentators are divided about it. For example, how do we translate "totafos"? Similarly, the pasuk "Shema Yisrael" has various explanations even of its simple meaning. Likewise in the section about tzitzis, some explain it [the word "tzitzis"] in the sense of "looking" [from the root tzadi yud tzadi], and some explain it as "going" [from yud tzadi aleph]. Same for the word "p'sil" and many [other words] like it. 4) Behold, the essential Name of Havay' - we don't know how to translate it correctly! There are those who translate it as Nitzchi [Eternal], and some translate it as Kol-Yachol [Almighty], and there is no translation at all for "Was and Is and Will Be", which is the real Name Havay', so they equate the translation of the Name Havay' with the Name Elokim. 5) [Here he says something about two very different ways of translating "V'chara af", but I don't understand what he is saying.] 6) And therefore, nowadays it is forbidden to recite Krias Shema or Tefilla or any brachos except in Lashon Hakodesh, and so have the Geonei Olam paskened for about eighty years now, and this is the bottom-line halacha. >>> The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it? He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists? According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty AND Was/Is/WillBe? In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3: 1) It seems in my humble opinion that there is an established halacha by which one can get out of any questionable bracha acharona. For example, one is unsure if he said a bracha acharona or not. Or if he *needs* to make a bracha acharona or not. There is a way to extricate himself from this safek. 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167. 3) If so, one can say "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, boray nefashos etc. ..." If he was obligated in this bracha, then he is yotzay with this. And if he didn't need this bracha, then he has *not* uttered the Name of Heaven in vain, because there is no mention of the Name at all. Look, you can say "Rachamana" a hundred times! 4) Or similar things with other brachos. You should think in your heart that if you need the bracha then it is [being said] for the sake of a bracha; and if not, then it's just talking. 5) I have done this myself several times when drinking hot drinks. The most obvious thing from this section is that the Aruch Hashulchan personally believes that a bracha CAN be said in Aramaic. You might respond that he makes an exception for Aramaic, which is arguably a Lashon Hakodesh. But look again at the AhS's requirements for an adequate translation of Hashem's Name - which is an absolute necessity when saying a bracha - and I don't think "Rachamana" conveys any sense of "Was and Is and Will Be". Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude someone from a partial translation. For example, one could translate most of the words, and leave the difficult words untranslated, which is almost exactly how ArtScroll handles the cited case of "totafos": "Bind them as a sign upon your arm and let them be tefillin between your eyes." If I'm understanding Siman 62 correctly, the AhS wants translation to be all-or-nothing, and since all is not possible, he feels justified in banning all translations. But in Siman 202, a partial translation is exactly what he is doing, by translating the initial words of the bracha, and then continuing with the regular Hebrew text. By the way, it seems that Rav Moshe Feinstein agrees that a translation must be all-or-nothing. See Igros Moshe OC 4:40:27, which is two paragraphs. In the first paragraph, he rejects the AhS's suggestion of using Brich Rachamana to get out of problems, precisely because you can't mix languages in that manner. (It's not at all clear to me why we're not allowed to mix languages, but it is very clear that Rav Moshe rejects it.) In the second paragraph he explains that even if one would say the entire bracha in Aramaic, that too would not resolve a safek bracha problem, because whereas the AhS had no compunctions against saying Rachamana a hundred times, *we* are noheg to avoid saying the Name in vain even when translated. As an aside, there are several teshuvos in which Rav Moshe explains his views on how to translate Hashem's Name for brachos in other languages. See for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:272, where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana, "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ... And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe, whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include concepts like "Was and Is and Will Be". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Sep 14 05:43:25 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:43:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. What is the minimum amount of shofar blowing that one is required to hear? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. In three different places the Torah commands us to blow shofar in the month of Tishrei: Twice in relation to Rosh Hashanah, and once in reference to Yom Kippur (Yovel ? Jubilee). The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 34a) connects the three verses and derives that each time the shofar is blown, it must be blown three times. The Gemara also proves that every blowing of the shofar actually consists of three parts: A Tekiah (a long blow), followed by a Teruah (a broken blow), followed by a Tekiah. This makes for a total of nine blows. The mitzvah is to blow the shofar nine times following this pattern. Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah However, because the Gemara records a disagreement as to the sound of the Teruah, we blow three variations. This amounts to 30 blows. 3X ? Tekiah ? Shevarim Teruah ? Tekiah=(12) 3X ? Tekiah ? Shevarim? Tekiah=(9) 3X ? Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah=(9) This is the minimum amount of shofar blows that one should hear to fulfill their obligation. If even this is too much, at the very least one should make sure to hear at least ten blasts. (See Mishnah Berurah 586:22 & 600:7). Tekiah ? Shevarim Teruah ? Tekiah=(4) Tekiah ? Shevarim ? Tekiah=(3) Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah=(3) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 18:29:14 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 21:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur Message-ID: . R' Aryeh Frimer asked: > Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when > Davening BiYehidut > (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but > perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la > Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head: Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice. Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 06:38:38 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:38:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Q. Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 565:5) writes that the "Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim" > (thirteen attributes of mercy, Shemos 34:6-7) may not be recited unless there is a > minyan. When these pesukim are recited in the context of prayer, they have the > elevated status of a "davar she'bikedusha," like Kaddish or Kedusha, that may only > be said in the presence of a minyan. I actually traced this back to its source - a new obsession of mine. It's a Tur in 565 (Hil. Ta'anis). "Rav Nosson writes there's no Minhag for an individual to say the 13 attributes." (Excuse the stilted word-for-word translation). The Tur then seems to make it clear that he's quoting this to ensure people don't find this Rav Nosson and pasken like it: "I don't know what the problem is since it's like saying Psukim, since the Chachamim only say (not to say w/o a Minyan) a Dovor Shebikdusha like Kaddish, Kedusha and Borchu" (Who is this Rav Nosson? The only Rishon I could find by this name was the Oruch.) The Darkei Moshe injects (on Rav Nosson's statement) saying "our Minhag is (for individuals) to say it, but not during the Shmoneh Esre. The Mahr"iv quoting the O"Z says individuals should not say Selichos." (I.e. they used to say Selichos on Ta'anis during Chazoras haShatz. Actually, we Yekkes still do.) See it online at https://www.sefaria.org.il/Tur%2C_Orach_Chaim.565.1?with=Darchei%20Moshe - for those who can see the Hebrew: , ???? ???? ?????:??:? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?"? ???? [?] ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???: [?] ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????"? ??? ?"? ???? ????? ???? ?????? So the Tur and the Darkei Moshe both agree that an individual can say the "Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim". The dissenting opinion says to skip Selichos altogether. >From there it's all downhill. The common denominator being that all Nosie Keilim seem to pasken like Rav Nosson and try to find workarounds. I find this fascinating. I wonder if the Tur now regrets ever mentioning this opinion. :-) Note that this is all mentioned in Hil. Ta'anis. In 581 where they discuss Selichot during Elul, they ignore this topic completely. KVT - Danny From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Sep 16 10:42:32 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:42:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] practical and detailed shir for Baalei tokaya and makri Message-ID: <089901d68c50$c22d7680$46886380$@touchlogic.com> Very good. Starts basic, but gets better.. >From Rabbi Mordechai Scheiner, rosh Kollel Ohr Yosef - toronto https://zoom.us/rec/share/xyvl_GE2lRo5GmE02A0XVqL4TEp3Kq4RqYfPZ4zAbezsR4D1c7G8LaIToB8dxYbe.0vgzJDhv9dDlViCP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 13:40:15 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:40:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <2110840790.2504917.1600178620157@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20200914185208.GC25700@aishdas.org> <2110840790.2504917.1600178620157@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20200917204015.GA749@aishdas.org> Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT: > Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim > we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is > problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out sifrei > Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos given to > 12 year olds, etc... > This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked how > we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to celebrate a > siyum that itself is iffy. > But when I wrote that, few of us really thought that Israel would be > closing down for the chagim, and that ever minute of shul in nearly all > of chu"l is increasing medical risk. So now we're talking about invoking > heteirim to party at the peril of the medically fragile in the community. > I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the > bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this year's > leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a Simchas > Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can anyone argue > for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that psychological need for > the majority of people? On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 2:03pm GMT, R Harry Maryles replied on Areivim: > It's true that most Shuls had a pretty big gap in their weekly Kriyas > HaTorah and that many Parshios were missed. But some Shuls hae made them > up. In a few cases no Parshios were missed. For example in my son's > neighborhood of Ramat bet Shemesh which is over 90% observant, my son > did KhT every Shabbos from his balcony with a Minyan made of of all of > his neighbors within earshot. (Don't know how he arrived at calling this > Teffilah B'Tzibur, but that was his Beshas Ha'dechak Psak.) > IIUC, Doing Hakafos on ST is a Minahg of the Tzibur, not the Yachid. > It is based on what the Klal as a whole does. The celebration of > completing yearly cycle with Hakafos is therefore appropriate this year > just like every year. But only along the lines I suggested because of > the pandemic. There are cases where every parashah was leined beause the members of the minyan can't disband anyway -- like in a nursing home or on an army base. But I fear you presented a false dichotomy. Yes, leining and therefore the siyum on leining we celebrate on ST are about the tzibur. But I wouldn't assume that means the global tzibur. After all, there was even a time when annual leining wasn't a universal norm. I had presented a third option, because I had assumed a neighorhood tzibbur. With all the modern complications now that most communities have shenei batei din ba'ir, as we put it WRT the tzibbur accepting Shabbos. But whether your town, your shul, or something else, that I didn't have a position on. So as I saw it, if no minyan in town leined the whole seifer Torah betzibbur, how is that community making a siyum? Shouldn't the shul making the party include at least person completing the text being mesayeim? In any case, there are at least those three possibilities, and we only agree on ruling out the first one, the yachid. But my point on Areivim, just like the point I made here to begin with, was more about most of the minhagim for celebrating Simchas Torah are on the defensive. We lein at night. (At least most of us do.) We take out more sifrei Torah than we read from. We give way too many people aliyos. We are relying on heteirim on a slew of dinim about kavod ST and qeri'as haTorah. We need a certain level of justification for it. We don't have to just say that ST celebrates someone else's completion of the Torah -- we need to be able to argue that's true strongly enough to justify those heteirim. Or, that we need ST for our mental health strongly enough to qualify as justification. Which is an approach I am more sympathetic to than saying I am dancing in my shul with a seifer Torah to celebrate the men of Nachal Yehudah (eg) and in the senior living facilities a couple of miles outside our eiruv at Daughter of Miryam completing a cycle of leining. Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries http://www.aishdas.org/asp are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 18 05:05:52 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:05:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Is one permitted to fast on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. One is not permitted to fast on Rosh Hashanah because Rosh Hashanah is a Yom Tov. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (OC 597:1) rules that one must eat, drink and rejoice on Rosh Hashanah. Nonetheless, unlike other Yomim Tovim, one should not overindulge, lest the solemn nature of the day will be obscured. However, there were Rishonim who held that it is permissible to fast during the daytime because Rosh Hashanah is a day of teshuva. Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l said that his great-grandfather, the Beis HaLevi, would fast both days. In fact, there were those who would fast even on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah because they considered the importance of teshuva on this day to be on the level of pikuach nefesh (life threatening), which overrides the requirement to eat a Shabbos seuda. Although in practice we follow the Shulchan Aruch and do not fast on Rosh Hashanah, the Mishnah Berurah (584:5) makes a distinction between Rosh Hashanah which falls on Shabbos, and Rosh Hashanah which falls on a weekday, as follows: When Rosh Hashanah falls on a weekday, we are permitted to extend the davening into the afternoon, while if Rosh Hashanah is on Shabbos, we are required to finish davening before chatzos (halachic midday) so as not to fast past the morning. As such, if one expects their shul to finish davening on Shabbos after chatzos, it is best to drink a tea or coffee in the morning before going to shul, to avoid fasting inappropriately on Shabbos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 18 05:17:03 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:17:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Laws & Customs: Month of Tishrei during the Corona period Message-ID: For those in quarantine, davening by themselves or in outside Minyanim Please see https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/groupsioattachments/14569/76906693/102/0?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJECNKOVMCCU3ATNQ&Expires=1600431735&Signature=d1788QfnWQyWHF1xjnl7Zn59EJg%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3D%22Tishrei+During+Corona.pdf%22 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Mon Sep 21 05:50:14 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 13:50:14 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? Message-ID: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT: > Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim > we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is > problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out > sifrei Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos > given to > 12 year olds, etc... BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So while it might be that the Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah out). Note that that also means that the siyum for the year, even in a normal year, is not complete (or about to be completed) when the sifrei Torah are taken out at night, as the first hakafos take place (at latest) on the night of Simchat Torah, and yet the finishing of the yearly reading only occurs the next day. Note the reason why I say at latest is because many Sephardim (although not all) have the custom of doing seven sets of seven hakafot which mean they do hakafot on Shmini Atzeret as well (three sets on Shmini Atzeret, to correspond with the three services, three sets on Simchat Torah, to correspond with the three services, and one after Simchat Torah). > This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked > how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to > celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy. There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah, something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah. Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations and to call to others to make a feast. *And further it is the custom* in our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every place according to its custom. *And further we are accustomed* to circle with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with the lulav *and all is because of joy* *Further we are accustomed* to call all the lads to the sefer Torah, ... and in every place according to their custom. *Further we are accustomed* to finish the Torah even with a child oleh..." That is, while you appear to be saying that *because* we make a siyum on the Torah *therefore* we do all these other halachically iffy customs, even the Rema does not say this. To the extent he gives a reason, it is "because of joy", and all the customs are as a result of *that* category. Which makes sense, because making a siyum justifies a seudah being considered a seudas mitzvah (and may justify the name of Simchas Torah, instead of second day Shmini Atzeret), and there are references in the gemara that seem to justify the making of a feast for a siyum, although the derivation is not really that straightforward, nowhere does it allow any of the other behaviour that might be Halachically iffy. On the other hand, simcha is a mitzvah d'orisa on yom tov, and indeed according to Sukkah 48a " It was taught in a braita: [Devarim 16:16] "and it will be completely joyous" this is to include the night of the last day of Yom Tov [lelei yom tov acharon]" Now of course, that is referring in the Torah to Shmini Artzeret, and it is interesting that in chutz l'aretz, we seem to have taken the especially joyous obligation of that d'orisa mitzvah, and attached it to what is the night of yom tov achron for us, which in fact is only minhag avosaynu b'yadanu. But be that as it may, it seems to me that, as the Rema says, the justification for all of these minhagim is simchas yom tov, and particularly the extra simcha of the final days of yom tov, and that they are independent of one another, so that the aspects related to making a siyum on the Torah are independent of taking the sifrei Torah out, and of doing the hakafos, and of singing and dancing. And if anything, the minhag of having a siyum on completing a full yearly reading of the Torah could perhaps be seen as being caused by the obligation to create extra joy on Shmini Atzeret/Simchas Torah, and not the other way around. We have arranged our schedules so that we have the joy of completely the Torah on this day, as Torah learning is in and of itself a form of joy (see eg the introduction to the Eglei Tal), so we arrange them to coincide. > I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the > bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this > year's leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a > Simchas Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can > anyone argue for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that > psychological need for the majority of people? But again, this assumes that all the minhagim on Simchas Torah are a direct result of the siyum, which I do not believe is the case. It is important to have Simchas Yom Tov, and to do what we can to maximise simchas Yom Tov, and if the siyum part is not possible, but the other parts are, then the other parts should be done. <> And the classic justification for these heterim is that the aseh of simcha is docheh, as per the Rema. However, because we are taking about simcha that is required by the Torah, it is linked to and part and parcel with simcha with the Torah - without the Torah there would be no obligation of such simcha, so simcha that is antithetical to the Torah, ie does not encompass kavod haTorah, is not justified. Which is why I am not even convinced that it is a tzibbur versus yachid thing. Would there be a problem if a Rav, who happened to live above the shul, took out the sefrei Torah and did hakafos with them with his family around an empty shul, because he was restricted by Covid requirements to his bubble, which did not contain a minyan? I'm not sure there would. There are potential issues with leining, and even more so with making birchas haTorah on such layning, but do we consider hakafos as a dvar shebekedusha that absolutely has to have a minyan? It is post gemara, so it is not so clear it can be a dvar shebekedusha, which might need to have been instituted by the Anshei Knesset Hagadola or at least not to be post Ravina and Rav Ashi (that might also turn on whether you follow the Aruch haShulchan and the Rokach, who hold that kaddish was instituted by the Anshei Knesset HaGadola, and that is what justifies its status as a dvar shebekedusha, or whether you follow the Shibbolei Ha-Leket and the teshuvas HaGeonim which seem to suggest that the whole institution of kaddish within prayer was instituted by the Geonim (and if so, whether a takana of the Geonim is and remains binding or it does not)). <> But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as something of an obligation of the tzibbur (the tzibbur would seem to be needed in order to make sure that we are making the widow happy). So to the extent that it is dependent upon simcha, then that obligation remains, even if the minhagim of the tzibbur, ie the way the tzibbur traditionally performs such simcha, might not be possible at the present time, and hence is not an obligation. -Micha Gmar Tov Chana From doniels at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 03:16:13 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:16:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur Message-ID: . R' Aryeh Frimer asked: > Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when > Davening BiYehidut > (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but > perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la > Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. R' Akiva Miller answered: > No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head: > Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it > certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice. > Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is > mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there. In a nutshell, you can see it here on Sefaria: https://tinyurl.com/y2qgtuyx It's a Mishna in Nedirim 3:1, discussed in Talmud 23a, codified in Yoreh De'a 211 to which the Ba'er Heitev decides that as long as one said it loud enough to be heard to one's own ears, it's valid. None of the commentators along the way mention publicity. The only issue they have is "Devorim She'B'Leiv" if it's whispered or thought. Along the way I learnt: You can say it ("just kidding about the Neder stuff") any time. Those who hold you don't have to say it right before making the Neder, don't give it an expiration date - IOW once a lifetime should be sufficient. Bottom line: If it works, you can chant the "futuristic" Kol Nidrei to yourself in an undertone. CLOR. Gmar Chasima Tova - Danny, not a Rabbi by any stretch of imagination. From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Sep 17 08:56:27 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:56:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Consumer Daf HaKashrus - Spices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I normally do not send out messages with attachments, but I could not locate this online. [See for attached PDF. -micha] From the pdf file > This article is an in-depth look at a specific category of vegetables: > spices. Spices refer to aromatic vegetable products used to season or > flavor foods. Less than 2% of food consumed in the United States are > spices, but what a difference that 2% makes! Without spices, all food > would be bland and unappetizing. > As mentioned, there are many spices exported by Israel, which create a > whole host of potential kashrus issues. All uncertified Israeli spices > present serious kashrus challenges in the form of tevel and shemitah. A > Mashgiach visiting a spice plant must be on the lookout for this. Because > of the aromatic and fragrant nature of spices, these spices will not > be batel in a mixture, as they are avida l'taama, added to mixtures > for taste, and anything which is added to a mixture for taste does not > become batel. This halachah is paskened by Rema in Yoreh Deah 98:8, > from the Gemara (Beitza 38b, Chulin 6a). See the attachment for much more. From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Sep 22 05:50:20 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:50:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Cheerios and Pas Yisroel Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Can one eat Cheerios during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva (ten days from Rosh Hashana to Yom Kippur) or Shabbos and Yom Tov for those who only eat Pas Yisroel on those days? What about other breakfast cereals? Must they be Pas Yisroel? A. There are differing opinions as to whether Cheerios is considered pas. The OU poskim do not consider it pas, because of the size of the individual pieces and the manner in which it is made. Likewise, wheat flake cereals are not considered ?bread-like? and therefore do not need to be pas Yisroel. Corn and Rice Cereals are, by definition, not bread items. See our Pas Yisroel List ? 5781 at OUKosher.org for OU certified Pas Yisroel brands and products. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 14:09:36 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200922210936.GD19252@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 11:36:29PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was > supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated > prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in > the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it? The SA often just echoes Chazal when the case is considered theoretical. So, if he didn't see people really trying to say Shema in la'az, the Mechaber wouldn't deal with the practical problems of trying to do so and just note that hypothetically, Chazal said it was mutar. > He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators > lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are > incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text > holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to > adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists? Or maybe just the right shade for each instance. If you get too nitpicky, you'll note that two different speakers of the same language have different memories and associations with many of their different words, and don't have bidiyuq the same things in mind when using them. Exact precision is a rabbit's hole to fall down. The question is defining "exact enough". Maybe exact enough to relay one out of multiple peshatim? WRT semitic languages, there are going to be much closer matches. So, davening in Aramaic seems much more doable than davening in a Romantic or Germanic language. > According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the > Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word > "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those > languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's > satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty > AND Was/Is/WillBe? Or maybe Moshe translated to a phrase. Or maybe, because Moshe knew which connotation of the sheim was primary in each context, he was able to pick the right translation for each. > In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my > translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3: ... > 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana, > Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe > (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written > in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167. But he pointedly does NOT say that it's a good idea even if it's not a a safeiq. So it would seem translations are only good enough when there is no better way to deal with the situation. You're comparing what he says here lekhat-chilah with his solution for a bedi'eved. BTW, I think berikh Rachmana is about fulfilling the purpose of the berachah without trying to fulfill Chazal's coinage. Like if we said you would be be meqabel ol Malkhus Shamayim by saying Shema in English, but not yotzei the actual mitzvah of Q"Sh. Because there is no "atah", and "of this bread" isn't "Who Brings bread out of the earth". It's not even a close paraphrase, never mind translation. It's not even an exactness of translation issue. Like, what if a native Hebrew speaker followed AhS OC 202 by saying "Barukh haRachaman Adon Melekh haOlam vehalachmaniah hazot". He would also avoid the risk of berakhaha levatalah and also that of the geneivah-like behavior of eating without a berakhah. > Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the > entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did > he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude > someone from a partial translation.... Why? Maybe someone would think "If I get a perfect enough translation just until 'al levavekha' or just the first pereq, at least he would be yotzei deOraisa." And SE is a different kind of problem than Shema, since its core is baqashos, not miqra. > for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:[1]72, > where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have > assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana, > "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and > established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common > among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ... > And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe, > whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include > concepts like "Was and Is and Will Be". BUT... only for some of the dinim of Sheimos. Not translations of tefillos. As you started your discussion of RMF -- he agrees with the AhS that such translations don't exist. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, http://www.aishdas.org/asp others come to love him very naturally, and Author: Widen Your Tent he does not need even a speck of flattery. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 14:23:23 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:23:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:50:14PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot > HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So while it might be that the > Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to > come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein > and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think > it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah > out).... I was taught the same line of reasoning besheim haGra. (I emailed RSMandel to double-check if it was from him, and did he have the mar'eh maqom. Got impatient holding off this reply for an answer.) >> This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked >> how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to >> celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy. > There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah, > something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and > Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be > related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the > way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah. > Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman > 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs: > > "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and > make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are > accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations > and to call to others to make a feast. *And further it is the custom* in > our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the > sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every > place according to its custom. *And further we are accustomed* to circle > with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with > the lulav *and all is because of joy*..." The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah shel torah* venohagim...") And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah". And since the Rama told you the simchah in question is that of the siyum, I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum, and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a community that year. >> Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either >> way. > But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as > something of an obligation of the tzibbur... Yes, but we don't take the sifrei Torah out at night for any other yom tov. It's not "just" simchas YT. So the question is whether I can invoke sharing in *his* simchah over finishing the Torah to participate. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search http://www.aishdas.org/asp of a spiritual experience. You are a Author: Widen Your Tent spiritual being immersed in a human - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Sep 22 16:57:21 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:57:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] forms of teshuvah Message-ID: From R' Gil Student: Medieval Ashkenazic authorities prescribed a variety of strong acts of self-induced suffering as part of the teshuvah process, including long-term fasting, lashes, exile and more. Rabbeinu Peretz (Gloss to Semak, no. 53) lists four kinds of teshuvah: 1) teshuvas charatah, in which you regret the sin; 2) teshuvas ha-geder, in which you set additional boundaries for yourself to avoid sinning in the future; 3) teshuvas ha-kasuv, in which you undergo the punishment listed in the Torah for your sin; 4) teshuvas ha-mishkal, in which you inflict yourself with pain corresponding to the amount of pleasure you enjoyed with your sin. Of these four, the first is what we consider standard teshuvah and the second is going above and beyond. The third and fourth are not - and should not be - practiced today. The Vilna Gaon's brother (Ma'alos Ha-Torah, introduction) makes clear that we cannot undergo these harsh forms of teshuvah in our time (his time, even more so in our time) and emerge physically and religiously healthy. Instead, he recommends intense Torah study. Me- what is the nature of the paradigm change claimed by the Ma'alos Ha-Torah? Gct 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 Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Tue Sep 22 15:25:17 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:25:17 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: <> Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is: ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the Torah" That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is because of the custom of making of completing the Torah. So maybe you should argue that *this* year Simchas Torah should not be called Simchas Torah, but Shmini Atzeres sheni! He does not say, as you have said "the simcha is that of completing the Torah*. << And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah".>> Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag. Most of the prohibitions however (such as not taking the sifrei Torah out for no reason, reading over and over, calling up ketanim) are because of kavod haTorah, ie kavod haTorah is the counterweight reason *not* to do these minhagim. However similar to the idea of oseh docheh lo ta'aseh, the mitzvah of simcha is able push aside certain kevod haTorah restrictions in certain circumstances, but clearly not in ones that are in fact a disgrace to the Torah, but only ones that enhance the simcha of the Torah. There is no reason for a siyum to push aside prohibitions relating to kavod haTorah. <> But he didn't he told you that is why the day has that name, not that the simcha in question is the siyum. All the different minhagim, including, but not limited to, having the siyum, are because of simcha. << I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum, and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a community that year.>> Then he need not have listed them as "v'od nehagu" etc <> But the gemora learns the simcha for yom tov acharon shel chag out of a separate pasuk to the psukim that we learn it for Sukkos. Why would Shmini Atzeres need its only special pasuk with its own special limud, why does the Torah not combine it with the simcha learnt out for sukkos? The mishna understands that one is obligated in the same way just like the seven days of sukkos so why are they not combined in the Torah? The logical answer is because there is something somewhat different about the nature of this simcha (and in fact one might be tempted to darshen the ach, not as the gemora does to exclude the first night of sukkos, but to say that it is a day of simcha only, not simcha and sukkah and arba minim, but only simcha). The custom, and the Rema makes it very clear that it is a custom, of making the siyum is very late, given that we know that a three year cycle was in existence for many years, and yet the descriptions of what was going on on Simchas Torah well predate the universality of the one year cycle (descriptions amongst the Geonim, inter alia). The fundamental mitzvah on Shmini Atzeres/Simchas Torah is therefore ach sameach! The interesting question is why in chutz l'aretz, other than amongst those Sefardim who start the hakafot on Shmini Artzeres, we do *not* take the sifrei Torah out on Shmini Atzeres. However, to the extent that one is sitting in the sukkah on Shmini Artzeret, and it is still thereby linked to sukkos, then maybe it makes sense that in chutz l'aretz, the day that is ach sameach, with no link to what went before, is Simchas Torah, despite it only being yom tov sheini shel golios. <> But only if you assume the linkage that, against the explicit language of the Rema, the cause of all the other minhagim is the siyum, including where they are otherwise in violation of kevod haTorah, rather than that the special simcha due to the special pasuk is the cause of all the minhagim including the siyum. GCT! -Micha Regards Chana From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 03:12:16 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 06:12:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? Message-ID: . Several posters referenced the Rama, which R"n Chana Luntz translated as: > The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they > rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of > the Torah Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to our private learning of the parshios, such as those who learned the parsha each week by reading it themselves from a chumash while the shuls were closed? Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv, but by taking the time and effort to actually mouth every single word myself (rather than just listen to the kriah and let my mind dwell on this pasuk and that pasuk), I feel that my learning of Chumash this year was considerably better than in years past, and I'll have no problem celebrating that, to whatever extent our rav allows. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 23 05:51:56 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 12:51:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Medicine on Yom Kippur Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May a person who is ill, but is not in mortal danger (choleh she?ein bo sakana) consume unsweetened medicine on Yom Kippur? A. This is the subject of a dispute between the Acharonim. According to Shaagas Aryeh (75-76), one is not permitted to take medicine on Yom Kippur. Even though medicine is not a ?food?, and the prohibition to consume medicine is Rabbinic in nature ? which is normally waived for people who are ill, nonetheless, by swallowing the pill , the individual demonstrates that he or she considers it as food, and it is therefore forbidden on Yom Kippur. K?sav Sofer (OC 111) strongly disagrees and maintains that consuming medicine when ill does not demonstrate that it is a food item, and therefore medicine may be swallowed on Yom Kippur. Igros Moshe (OC 111:91) concurs with this ruling as well. If a person must drink water to swallow a pill, contemporary poskim recommend adding a bitter substance to water, such as a significant amount of lemon juice or vinegar, so that the water has a very unpleasant taste. This was the opinion of Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul, (Ohr L?Tziyon, IV 15:8), Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (Ashrei Ha?Ish III 23:230) and Rav Nissim Karelitz (Chut HaShani, Yom Kippur p. 145). If the pill is sweet, it is considered to be a food independently of its medicinal properties. In such instances, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach advised that the pill should be wrapped in a tissue and swallowed in that manner (Shemira Shabbos KeHilchasa 39:8; Halichos Shlomo, Yom HaKippurim 5:8). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 11:23:34 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 14:23:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200923182334.GA22665@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:25:17PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing >> the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah >> shel torah* venohagim...") > Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is: ... > Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah > because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the > Torah" > That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is > because of the custom of making of completing the Torah.... Because "shesimeichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh legamrah shel Torah". The simchah and making the mishteh are for the completion of the Torah. And thus the name of the holiday reflects that simchah. ... > Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha > on yom tov acharon shel chag. But the Rama doesn't say simchas YT, just "mishum simchah". OTOH, as we saw, the Rama opens by speaking of the simchah and mishteh of completing the Torah. So, if he just says "simchah" afterwards, why would I think it is anything but the "semeichin ... legamra shel Torah" already brought into the discussion? You're assuming the Rama changes topics without telling us. (Of course, I didn't think any of this out before my first post. I just read the sources, not thinking about other possibilities until it became a discussion. But I can't say that you convinced me yet that I brought too many unconscious assumptions to the table, that your read is comparably viable.) On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 06:12:16AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public > laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to > our private learning of the parshios... It refers to the completion that occured that morning, which was indeed leining. The AhS ad loc says the party is traditionally paid for with pledges by the Chasanim. Not, as I see done today, that the qiddush the next two Shabbosos are. > Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv... A siyum is a siyum. People make a siyum on a mesechtes gemara that they had no particular chiyuv to learn over learning something else. I just don't think we were mesaymim what the minhagim were established to celebrate. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. http://www.aishdas.org/asp If you want time, you must make it. Author: Widen Your Tent - Charles Buxton - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Wed Sep 23 15:37:44 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 23:37:44 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: > Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have > simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag. And RMB replied: <> I suppose the reason it seems to me obvious that mishum simcha, means the simcha of Yom Tov, is because: a) when the poskim say something is meshum simcha in the context of yom tov, they mean the mitzvah of simcha - for example: the Levush and the Bach (and numerous others, I believe) hold that the hakafos of the lulav during sukkos is mishum simcha (or at least the hakafos in the Beis HaMikdash, come directly out of the pasuk mandating simcha, and we then do them as a zecher. In that context, various rishonim and achronim discuss whether an avel is permitted to do hakafos, ie whether the simcha of the day pushes of the fact that a avel is forbidden from simcha. And in all these discussions, when they talk about simcha or mishum simcha, simchas Yom Tov is understood. b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas Torah. But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion would need to be had. c) On the other hand, the obligation to have a seudas mitzvah on finishing learning comes from a statement in gemora shabbas (118b-119a) where Abaye says: he should be rewarded because whenever he heard about a tzurba d'rabanan finishing a mesechta, he would make a yom tov for the Rabbis, which is understood to mean a seudas mitzvah. This is listed as part of a whole list of various Amoraim stating what it is that they believe they should get a special reward for, including being careful in known mitzvos (such a tefillin and tzitzis, and three meals on shabbas) and what are identified as good minhagim (such as not going daled amos with his head uncovered). It is really not clear into which category Abaye's statement falls. And while the Rema in Yore Deah siman 246, si'if 26 does say that " when one finishes a mesechet it is a mitzvah to rejoice and to make a feast, and it is called a seudas mitzvah" - to hang everything we do on Simchas Torah on this one statement in the gemora seems like a breathtaking chiddush. And think about it this way. If I were to finish a mesechta, here today, does that mean I can take the sifrei Torah out of the aron, dance around with them, call up some children (and some people together at once, making the brachos at once), read multiple times, take the sifrei Torah out into the street, (and, if it was shabbas, dance even if in general I held that dancing on shabbas is not permitted, as per the Shulchan Aruch?). Given that the essential siyum that is described in the gemora and referred to by the Rema is on a mesechet in Shas, then all this should be permissible on any day of the week, not just Simchas Torah. Because mai nafka minah. So I suppose it seems to me obvious that all the heterim the Rema refers to cannot be because of the simcha of the siyum, especially as the heterim were in place before the siyum was necessarily happening, historically, which again seems to suggest that the one does not cause the other. I do see that in fact the Aruch HaShulchan seems to support you, as in Orech Chaim siman 669 si'if 2 he says in the middle of the piece: "And also we are accustomed that two are called up together and bless, and even though it is not correct in any event because of the joy of the siyum they do so ." - whereas I would have thought he should say the joy of Yom Tov. So the Aruch HaShulchan would seem to be supporting your position. But still, I cannot see, if the Aruch HaShulchan is saying this, how he can be correct, because the consequences must surely be that any time there is a siyum, such a heter would then be permissible, or at least tolerable. I just can't see how this is right. I cannot see how, even if the whole of klal yisrael this year decided that we were going to have a siyum on kriyas hatorah when we had had a full year since last lockdown (ie assuming a vaccine became widely available and was effective), somewhere in the middle of the year, it would it be mutar as part of holding that siyum on krias haTorah on an ordinary Shabbat, to have the usual Simchas Torah heterim. According to you it would be, but I cannot see that this can be right, and I struggle to believe the Rema would authorise it were he here today. <> Not really. Given that mishum simcha in the context of a Yom Tov is logically understood to mean simchas yom tov, without the modifier, the Rema is just explaining in greater detail why we do everything we do before. That *includes* holding the completion of the krias hatorah cycle on Simchas Torah. ie we arrange to have the siyum on Simchas Torah, *because* of the nature of Simchas Torah, not that Simchas Torah is the way it is because of the siyum of finishing the reading cycle. -Micha Gmar Tov Chana From zev at sero.name Wed Sep 23 17:48:28 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: On 23/9/20 6:37 pm, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an > avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas > Torah. But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion > would need to be had. Last year, when I was an avel, I was told that for Hoshanos I should not go around at all, and should lend my arba minim to someone else who hasn't got them, and have him go around in my place. (Or at least that's how I understood it; it may be that lending the arba minim was simply a suggestion to do someone a chesed, since I wasn't using them.) For Simchas Torah I was told that I could go around with the group, but should not hold a sefer torah while doing so; after the hakafa I could take a sefer and dance with it. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781 zev at sero.name "May this year and its curses end May a new year and its blessings begin" From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 25 05:07:22 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 12:07:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?What_foods_should_one_eat_at_the_seuda_?= =?windows-1252?q?ha=92mafsekes_=28last_meal=29_on_erev_Yom_Kippur=3F?= Message-ID: Please see https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/foods-one-eat-seuda-hamafsekes-last-meal-erev-yom-kippur/?category=yom-kippur&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shsh%20Haazinu%205781%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=32573763&spUserID=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&spJobID=1784317155&spReportId=MTc4NDMxNzE1NQS2 What foods should one eat at the seuda ha?mafsekes (last meal) on erev Yom Kippur? | OU Kosher Certification Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 608:4) writes that on erev Yom Kippur, one should eat light foods that are easily digestible, so one will be able to daven on Yom Kippur with proper concentration. There is a common custom to dip challah in honey. Mishnah... oukosher.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emteitz at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 13:32:06 2020 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 16:32:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What will be with Simchas Torah Message-ID: The comment was made, "Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to our private learning of the parshios, such as those who learned the parsha each week by reading it themselves from a chumash while the shuls were closed? Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv, . . ." It isn't? See OC 385:1. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Sep 29 05:08:16 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:08:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is an Esrog Muktza on Shabbos Message-ID: >From today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. This year, the first day of Sukkos is Shabbos, and there is no mitzvah of lulav and esrog. Can I show my neighbor my beautiful esrog, or is it muktza? Q. Shulchan Aruch (OC 658:2) writes that a lulav is muktzah on Shabbos. Since there is no mitzvah of lulav and esrog on Shabbos, a lulav serves no purpose, and it is mukztah like other tree branches. However, an esrog may be moved, since it has a function; one may smell the fruit. (There is a dispute if the beracha on fragrances is recited when smelling an esrog on Sukkos, since the primary function of an esrog on Sukkos is for the mitzvah of lulav and esrog and not for fragrance. To avoid the uncertainty of reciting a beracha, the Shulchan Aruch recommends not smelling an esrog on Sukkos. Nonetheless the Mishnah Berurah (658:5) writes there is no restriction to smell an esrog on Shabbos and recite a beracha, because there is no mitzvah on that day.) Since, it has a function, it is not muktza, and it may be moved for any purpose. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt?l (Shmiras Shabbos K?Hilchaso 22: note 62) writes that today, since people are protective of their esrogim and will not pass them around to be smelled, they are categorized as ?muktza machmas chisaron kis? (expensive or delicate items that are generally stored in a safe location), which may not be moved for any reason on Shabbos. The Aruch Hashulchan (OC 308:17) appears to rule this way as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 03:05:03 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 06:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: . I have long been bothered by why we cannot start or stop Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/geshem without a formal announcement , yet no announcements at all are required for starting and stopping any of the other changes to our tefilos. This past spring, in Avodah 38:24, I quoted a teshuva from Rav Hershel Schachter, where he tackled this question. (It is titled "Piskei Corona #9: Hallel on Pesach Night and Tefillas Tal". "Our Rav" refers to Rav JB Soloveitchik z"l; the parentheses are Rav Schachter's.) > There is a big difference between She'eila (V'sen Tal Umatar > Livracha) and Hazkara (Mashiv Haruach). See what I wrote in > the name of our Rav in MiPeninei HaRav (section Tefila, number > 5), that changing the descriptions of Hashem (from Mashiv > Haruach to Morid Hatal) requires Reshus Hatzibur, and an > individual is not allowed to make changes on his own. But I still don't understand what makes Mashiv Haruach so unusual. According to Rav Schachter's logic, shouldn't we also need Reshus Hatzibur to change the description of Hashem between HaKeil HaKadosh and HaMelech HaKadosh? Moreover, why is this Reshus Hatzibur required *every* *single* *time* that we start or stop Mashiv Haruach? Why isn't it sufficient that Chazal ordained that we start it every year on Shmini Atzeres, and stop it every year on Pesach? I once questioned how our Yom Tovim have any d'Oraisa status at all: If there's no Beis Din to declare that a certain day was Rosh Chodesh Tishrei, then where does Yom Kippur's status come from? The answer I got (Eliyahu Kitov, The Book of Our Heritage, v 1 pg 230) was that Hillel's beis din was mekadesh in *advance* all future Roshei Chadashim that would be calculated according to his rules. According to this reasoning, the required Reshus Hatzibur doesn't have to come from the gabbai or the chazan. It comes from Chazal, who ordained this schedule of changes to the Amidah, so when the calendar says to make a change, my requirement to do so comes automatically, whether I'm in shul or not, just like for all the other changes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Sep 30 12:02:34 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:02:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] fear of death Message-ID: Sheldon Solomon is a social psychologist at Skidmore College. He earned his B.A. from Franklin and Marshall College and his doctoral degree from the University of Kansas. He is best known for developing terror management theory, along with Jeff Greenberg and Tom Pyszczynski which is concerned with how humans deal with their own sense of mortality Sheldon Solomon - "I feel like there's a real sense in which doing these studies and writing books and lecturing has been my way of avoiding directly confronting my anxieties by turning it (me - fear of death) into an intellectual exercise" [Me - sounds like it could've been said by R'Chaim] Is this a common approach in orthodox circles Gmar tov 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 llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 30 06:10:27 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:10:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Question for Today's Times Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May one fulfill the mitzvah of picking up their lulav and esrog while wearing gloves? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 651:7) writes that if a person wrapped a cloth around their hand and picked up the lulav, some say one has not fulfilled the mitzvah. This is because the cloth is a chatzitza (barrier) between the hand and the lulav. The Mishnah Berurah (651:33) writes that the same applies if one is wearing gloves. He also explains that the reason Shulchan Aruch writes ?some say?, is because this is a matter of dispute among Rishonim. The opinion of the Ran is that if one wrapped their hands with cloth or put on gloves, the cloth is viewed as an extension of one?s hand, and as such, it is not a barrier. Therefore, if one did pick up the lulav while wearing gloves, the lulav should be lifted again to fulfill the mitzvah in accordance with those who view the glove as a chatziza. However, a new beracha would not be said because the mitzvah was already fulfilled according to the Ran. One who must wear gloves in shul should recite the berachos and shake the lulav at home before coming to shul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Jul 1 05:12:56 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:12:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ben Noach and mitzvas kiddush hashem Message-ID: <043501d64fa0$f4d21a60$de764f20$@touchlogic.com> I believe a few issues ago someone asked if benei noach are obligated in mitzvas kiddush hashem (to be moser nefesh to avoid their 7 mitzvos, as we are obligated wrt murder/arayos/AZ) See toldos Noah at length on this subject. Pg. 247-270 Email offline if you want scans.. Are they commanded in mitzvas kiddush hashem (no - rambam) Are they allowed to be moser nefesh for mitzvas kiddush hashem (machlokes) Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid killing someone (machlokes) Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid abortion. q etc From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 1 09:40:03 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 16:40:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux Message-ID: I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? 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 mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Jul 1 15:31:10 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:31:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status Message-ID: <052501d64ff7$52b1d1b0$f8157510$@touchlogic.com> https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/kosher-appliances/467/shattered-dre ams/ ... What is induction cooking? Induction cooking is a revolutionary energy efficient way of cooking without heat. How do you cook without heat? The answer is with electro-magnetic energy. The conventional burner is replaced with a coil of tightly wound copper wire under the glass cooktop. Turning on the "burner" sends electro-magnetic energy through the coil. If you placed your hand on the coil area, you would feel nothing. If you placed an aluminum pan on the same area you would still feel nothing. However, by placing an iron skillet or a pot with an iron core or magnetized stainless steel on the cooktop, the magnetized skillet completes the magnetic connection and the electro-magnetic field of energy transfers directly into the pan. This causes the iron molecules to move very rapidly, giving off heat. In turn, the cookware cooks the food. Lifting the pan off of the cooktop breaks the magnetic connection, and you will no longer be cooking. The cooktop will be heated by the "magnetic" pot or pan, but it does not get hot from the coil. Consequently, any spill onto the ceramic cooktop surface will be a result of an irui kli rishon, spillage from a hot pot, not a heated cooktop as you would have in conventional cooking. Hence, if one would want to kasher the cooktop, it could be accomplished by a lesser means of kasherization, irui kli rishon.10 Although induction cooking offers a koshering benefit, the cooktop cannot be used on Shabbos or Yom Yov because the cooking connection is made once the pot is put onto the coil area. Similarly, one would not be able to remove the pot from the cooktop on Shabbos or Yom Tov because one would be "disconnecting" the magnetic field by removing the pot. While the ability to kasher an induction cooktop is an advantage, the disadvantage of not being able to use it on Shabbos or Yom Tov makes this cooktop impractical, unless one has more than one cooktop in the kitchen (an induction for during the week, and a non-induction for Shabbos and Yom Tov). As with every new advent of technology, one balabusta's dream is another balabusta's nightmare. From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 03:43:44 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:43:44 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 3:00 PM Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was > forbidden. So at least for Ashkenazim this whole issue should not > exist. Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut. > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for the gezeira seem to apply. Even for Sephardim, since the SA is meikel in seif 4 in the case of servants in a beit yisrael. Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 15:43:22 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:43:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:27:08AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > RMB writes: >> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and that >> the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / minhag she'eino >> chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done. > So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b: > Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, v'Rav > Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: > Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? People practice like REbY. Why? R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example of BY chalaq R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah I presume you would say something like: R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: it'r universal pesaq R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something entirely different? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. Author: Widen Your Tent - Rachel Levin Varnhagen - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From cantorwolberg at cox.net Thu Jul 2 05:57:12 2020 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:57:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Something to Ponder Message-ID: To paraphrase this profound statement below by R? Yitzchok from the Talmud R.H. (16b) which is quite timely: Any year that begins without the straightforward, clear and unequivocal tekiya, will sadly end with the wavering sound of defeat ? the terua. ??"? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 05:12:53 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:12:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: . In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this is the one I want to ask about.) > The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation > of Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana > (danger). Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the > Mishnah, shuls were located outside of the cities where it was > not safe to be alone at night. The Rabbis were concerned that > people who came late to shul might be left alone while finishing > to daven. To give latecomers a chance to catch up and finish > davening with everyone else, Chazal extended the davening by > adding Mei'ein Sheva. I've heard this same explanation many times from many sources, but I've never understood it. Mei'ein Sheva is shorter than a single page in most siddurim - does its presence really lengthen the service significantly? If the shuls were outside the cities, it must have taken a certain amount of time to get home, and even to get to the outskirts of the city. Were the latecomers unable to catch up to their neighbors? Were the on-time people unwilling to stay in shul for the one or two minutes needed for the latecomers to finish? If this problem was sufficiently significant for Chazal to enact this measure, there were probably several latecomers every week, not just a single latecomer now and then. If so, couldn't the latecomers simply wait for each other, even if the on-time people rushed to get home? There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better? Thank you in advance. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 07:14:04 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:14:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200702141404.GB25994@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 01:43:44PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was > > forbidden.... > > exist. Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut. > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and > pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh" > it includes any form of cooking by heat... Or, any form of cooking by fire, whether broiling, roasting or boiling or frying in water or oil that are heated by fire. For an example that predates the taqaah, solar cooking. Does a rishon deal with the question of eating an egg cooked in the sand that was placed there by a non-Jew? And, as I opened in my first response, it's not just the Rama; "al ha'eish" and variants are common in the discussion. I don't think it's an Ashkenazi thing, just because the SA doesn't use the idiom himself. > That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a > Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for > the gezeira seem to apply.... The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for refu'ah beShabbos. Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking via fire. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, http://www.aishdas.org/asp eventually it will rise to the top. Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 2 07:13:40 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:13:40 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> > RMB wrote: >> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and >> that the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / >> minhag she'eino chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done. And I wrote: > So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b: > Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, > v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: > Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? <> Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim. If you were having a shiur about the halacha of meat, it would be remiss of you to mention the one, and not the other. And if you were giving a shiur to both Ashkenazim and Sephardim, I hope you would say - CYLOR [the L of course standing for "local"], rather than saying "we pasken" one way or the other. Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel, you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like. There are other opinions, and they might have been brought, but the end of the shiur would say - follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov, whereas I would hope that would not be what you would say regarding BY chalaq. <> But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>. Glatt is a tricky one, because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin. And the question then comes down to, why is it that someone keeps glatt, is it because he wants to be machmir for those who think it is really following the BY's iqur hadin, or is it because that is what his community does. If he is just doing it because he lives with other Hungarians so does it, but he really thinks the Rema is right, and it is a chumra that the people came up with (which you can argue it is, particularly because glatt is not the same as BY chalak) then it is a minhag garua. But if the community does it because they are really holding like the BY (at least to an extent), despite the Rema, I would say it is a minhag chashuv. I thought the better example of what you were saying is milchigs on Shavuos, which has no Rav psak behind it, but which has Rabbinic approval in the form of the Rema. That shows the distinction between what I thought you were arguing and what I am much more clearly. Ie that according to you minhag chashuv has no Rabbinic psak source, it is something the people came up with, but it is a religious practice that the Rabbis then approved, whereas I am saying that for a minhag chashuv to be a minhag chashuv, there needs to be a rabbinic psak that the people are relying on, even if other communities hold differently. And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, and the community then followed. It is not some religious idea, like milchigs on Shavuos, that the community came up with independently and then was approved. If R' Eliezer or Rabbi Meir had never paskened the way they did, then the minhag would never have arisen. That, I thought, was the fundamental distinction between what I am saying and you are saying. That I was saying to be a minhag chashuv, it has to be originally Rav psak derived, that people then followed. Whereas I understood you as saying that a psak is a psak, and different from a minhag chashuv, which had to be people derived, ie bottom up, albeit with Rav approval post fact. And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag? <> But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good thing. Especially as we discussing what are needed for an eruv (a halachic device), or whether the kohanim should duchan during Mincha and nei'ila of Yom Kippur. These aren't things like going around with baskets on your head, or squeezing fruit. They are religious acts. <> Yes. << R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq>> Yes, although I prefer to phrase it the psak that the people as a community [I prefer that to the term "local" as it sounds limited, while communities can be large or small] have adopted following Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, or Rabbi Meir [out of the options available], making it the minhag chashuv. <> I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in psak. To the point where their psak is not a valid psak. The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. Regarding R' Yochanan I believe I am following Rashi. Both Rashi, Tosfos and the Rosh refer us to Ta'anis 26b where it explains that if it is the halacha, you teach it "b'pirka" - ie you learn it out in the public halachic discussions. If it is minhag, you don't teach it b'pirka, but if someone comes to you and asks, you posken that way, and where it says nahagu - one does not rule this way, just "I avid, avid, v'lo mehadrinan lei". And Rashi in Ta'anis, says: U'man d'amar nahagu [ie Rabbi Yochanan] - mashma: hen nohagu me'alehen, aval aino ikar. Uminhag mashmar - Torat minhag yesh b'davar, uminhag kosher hu. The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher. That rather sounds like either it is a minhag taus [which in Yerushalmi speak is aino minhag, such as not working all motzei shabbas, even though this is clearly a religious practice] or a norm that has halachic impact. But it should not be dignified with the name minhag. However over in Eruvin Rashi (quoted approvingly there by Tosfos and the Rosh) uses the language - aval i avide lo machinan byadayhu - ie if they do it, we don't protest. That sounds much more like the minhagim that the Tosfos and the Rosh were discussing in Pesachim as being minhag lo chasuv (ie tolerated, and not gone against in front of, ie you are not to rule publically in front of them, but you don't actually have to keep), which is contrasted to a minhag chasuv. Tosfos in Brachos 52b (d"h nahagu ha'am) draws a different distinction between the situation over in Ta'anis and in Eruvin (and elsewhere, such as Rosh Hashana) and the situation in Brachos where Rabbi Yochanan again says nahagu ha'am [like Beis Hillel in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda - the subject matter being whether we say the blessing over the spices before or after the blessing over the flame in havdala]. Because we [and I think we all in fact, as Tosfos says] l'chatchila go according to this R' Yochanan that we make the blessing over the spices before the flame, and yet it would seem from Eruvin 62b (as understood by Ta'anis) that l'chatchila one shouldn't follow where it says nahagu ha'am, just that where the people are so accustomed, we don't make them go back if they did it wrong (so in the case of the havdala, one would think one should really bless the flame first, and then the spices, just if people did it the other way around, we wouldn't make them repeat havdala). And Tosfos' answer there in Brochos is that over in Eruvin, the nahagu ha'am is contrasted to someone saying "halacha" which means "halacha l'chatchila u'morin ken" and therefore when somebody else says nahagu they are meaning bideved, "aval hacha yachol l'hios d'ain kan ele nahagu greida". Note however that in the case in Brachos everybody agrees the halacha is like Beis Hillel (versus Beis Shammai). The issue at stake is how to understand Beis Hillel - like Rabbi Yehuda or like Rabbi Meir. And while Rabbi Meir would seem to be the stam mishna, we follow Rabbi Yehuda. That feels to me less "al pi Talmud chacham" - it is more how the relevant Talmud Chacham understood another set of talmudei chachamim. Whereas the case in Eruvin 62b is regarding what R' Eliezer ben Yaa'kov himself held (regarding non-Jews assuring a courtyard for eruv purposes, if there was only one Jew) versus Rabbi Meir, or in Eruvin 72 (do you need a shituf and an eruv), or Ta'anis (whether on Yom Kippur the Kohanim should bless at Mincha and ne'ila) ie is a matter of direct psak versus psak. With the sense that according to Rabbi Yochanan the psak in question is plain wrong, and knowledgeable people should ignore it. I think you could thus alternatively argue that Brachos is a classic minhag garua that happened to accord with how Rabbi Yehuda understood Beis Hillel, which in the absence of a clear psak either way, we follow the order the people decided upon, for their own reasons, whereas in the other cases, it is a minhag taus, that the psak is clearly wrong in halachic terms, but because there is this da'as yachid position out there, the hachamim were not prepared, in bideved situations, to make people go back and redo. Or you can say that actually over in Brachos Rabbi Yochanan, while using the term nahagu ha'am, given that it was not used in contrast to minhag k', meant really to say minhag k' - making it a minhag chashuv. Or maybe in fact we just ignore Rabbi Yochanan's expression. And what we are actually following is the ma'ase shehaya of Rava. In any event, for me the key fact is the Rav Huna defines minhag explicitly as going according to a psak, something you, I believe, said couldn't happen. How you understand Rabbi Yochanan, who specifically does not use the term minhag, just nagu ha'am for something which (leaving aside the situation in Brachos) he disapproves of, is secondary. -Micha Regards Chana From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 07:36:54 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:36:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:13:40PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote: >> Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, >> v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: >> Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? >> <> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example >> of BY chalaq > Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is not > what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim... You totally lost me. Neither Shemu'el's nor R Yehudah's "we" are Askenazim or Separadim. ... > Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we > pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel, > you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben > Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like... We are in agreement. >> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt > But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common religious > practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>... Which is exactly what I have R Huna saying here. The actual halakhah is lenient, the hamon am in practice are nohagim to be stringent like REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the stringency. It's not din, but it's a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval -- a minhag chashuv. > Glatt is a tricky one, because of > the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin... Still, Hungarians are following it as minhag, and are more lenient than the Sepharadi half of the world BECAUSE it is "just" minhag. To them. The issue you raise is a distraction from explaining the gemara. > And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely > and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi > Meir, and the community then followed... > And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as > expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' > Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario, > and yet it has the definition of minhag? After the rabbinate said you didn't have to. So in that sense it is "bottom up". The masses chose to do something extrahalachic. >> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah > But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a > minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good > thing.... By "common" hanhagah tovah I meant in contrast to any kind of minhag. Something many pious people do, not the masses. Like learning all night on Shavuos in Lithuania circa 1890. But in principle, even if R Huna meant everyone was doing it: Why would hanhagah tovah mean that the rabbis endorsed it? And I think you then agree with this "in princple, when you write: >> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He >> can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi >> talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something >> entirely different? > I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact > something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a > non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in > certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are > accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The point being here, is > that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in > psak. To the point where their psak is not a valid psak. The problem > being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and > have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. R Yochanan can say something is a hanhagah tovah and not a pesaq nor even an actual minhag. > The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice > with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher... Which according to me is what "minhag garua" means. Whereas you're saying that R Yochanan refers to it as a hanhagah, but is not calling it a minhag garua. Despite the common shoresh. So we agree on w to understand this machloqes, we disagree with what to call each position. To me, Shemu'el and R Yehudah, by talking about pesaq aren't talking about minhag chashuv. To you there are. R Huna is definitely talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq. Which to me is a minhag chashuv and to you a minhag garua. And R Yochanan is talking about a practies that doesn't rise up to that level. Which to me is a minhag garua and to you not even that much. It's all just in the labels, but that changes how we read the rishonim. That is why I ignored all the gemaras you cited that don't use the /nhg/ shoresh. The rest of your post argues for something we agree about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. http://www.aishdas.org/asp All that is left to us is Author: Widen Your Tent to be as human as possible while we are here. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From zev at sero.name Thu Jul 2 08:08:02 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 11:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking > and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul > shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking > with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the food gets hot of its own accord. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 2 11:51:19 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:51:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <003001d650a1$c6ab7350$540259f0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: >> <> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example >> of BY chalaq > Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is > not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim... <> You wrote the words "parallel to my example of BT chalaq" - see above. I responded to *your* example of BY chalaq - because you said that "R' Yehuda amar Shemuel: that's what we pasken - is parallel to my example of BY chalaq" I totally agree that neither Shemuel's nor R' Yehuda's "we" are Ashenazim or Sephardim - but *you* said that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is parallel to your example of BY chalaq (which you contrasted to glatt), and BY chalaq versus glatt is about Ashkenazim and Sephardim. If you agree that BY chalaq is not a parallel, then there is no need for this discussion. But because of the parallel that you brought, I couldn't (and can't) see how you can make the statement below (which you say you agree with): > Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is > what we pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda > amar Shemuel, you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow > R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like... If we agree that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is *not* parallel to BY chalaq, then we can agree we understand R'Yehuda amar Shmuel the same. >> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like >> glatt > But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common > religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>... <> Err, ReBY is actually the lenient one (he says you need two Jews living in a chatzer to assur it for carrying). Rabbi Meir is the stringent one (he says you only need one Jew and the chatzer is assur). So transposing your explanation, but with the correct way round, do you agree that, "the actual halacha is strict, the hamon am are in practice nohagim to be lenient like REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the leniency. It is not din, but it is a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval - a minhag chasuv"? Now do you think that if the people did not have ReBY to rely on, but had just come up with this by themselves, against the halacha of Rabbi Meir, Rav Huna would be so tolerant? If yes, then why did he phrase it as minhag k'RebY? Why didn't he say that if there is only one Jew in the courtyard, the minhag is to carry (because it doesn't' matter whether ReBY said so or not)? But if it *does* matter that ReBY said so, then you need more than just the people coming up with this idea of only one Jew living on the chatzer themselves. You need ReBY, or some other Rav, to have said so, followed by community acceptance to have it become a minhag. > Glatt is a tricky one, > because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin... > And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as > expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' > Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated > scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag? <> There were two different piskei halacha out there. ReBY (the lenient one) and R' Meir (the stringent one). R' Yehuda amar Shmuel states emphatically that ReBY is right, Halachically, and that the halacha is like him. R' Huna appears not to agree, otherwise he would have said what R' Yehuda amar Shemuel said. Rather, he accepts that the people having made the choice to go for the lenient position as a valid minhag. It is partially bottom up in that the people have made a choice between Psak A and Psak B, and decided to follow Psak A, in this case the lenient psak, but I do not believe they have decided to do something extrahalachic independent of there being two piskei halacha out there. It is the same scenario as following R' Yossi for milk and chicken, or Rabbi Eliezer for cutting the wood to make the knife to do the bris on shabbas. Or moving a lit candle on shabbas. Or working or not working erev pesach morning. Each case is the same underlying scenario: there were a range of piskei halacha out there. And certain communities, or sometimes the whole people, decided to follow one psak over another (even though in pure halachic terms that isn't necessarily the halacha). That is what makes it a minhag chasuv, as articulated by the Ri and the Rosh, ie that it is al pi Talmud chacham, and not just something the people came up with on their own, even where the people can provide religious justification. RMB: >> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah Chana: > But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a > minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a > good thing.... <> *Hanhaga tova* is *your* language, not mine. I assume you mean R' Yochanan here, not R' Huna, because you are the one who applied the words hanhaga tova to R' Yochanan in a previous post. I don't at all think that R' Yochanan is describing what he thinks of as a "hanhaga tova". I think (and I believe Rashi and Tosfos agree with me) that in this context if you have to use the term hanhaga, then he believes he is describing a hanhaga ra. <> No idea what you mean here. >> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? >> He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY >> is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to >> mine or something entirely different? > I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact > something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a > non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish > people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things > people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The > point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is > actually flat out wrong in psak. To the point where their psak is not > a valid psak. The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the > people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. <> He could, but in the context, where he is dealing with a situation where there is a lenient psak and a stringent psak, and where the people are going according to the lenient psak, he is clearly not saying that. He is saying it wrong what the people are doing, but if you come across somebody who has done it, they either don't have to reverse what they have done, or you don't need to create a fuss (as they have what he considers a da'as yachid to rely on). Depending on which Rashi you follow (and presumably Rashi/Tosfos in Eruvin had a different girsa in Ta'anis, given that they don't quote "not reversing", but "not protesting"). > The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this > practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher... <> Hanhaga was, as mentioned, your language, not mine. I said that one interpretation of Rabbi Yochanan is a minhag garua - that is if you hold that it is something that one shouldn't protest. Just like all the other cases in Pesachim where the rabbis said not to protest the minhagim. However if it is something one should protest, just that one doesn't make people do things again (ie our girsa in Ta'anis), then that appears to be less than a minhag garua (more like a minhag taus). <> No, I don't think so. <> No, I never said that, and I don't think so. In the case of Shmuel and R Yehuda we are talking about psak. <> No. To me what R' Huna is talking about is also minhag chashuv. I didn't think you agreed with that, but am fine if you do. If you agree that this is a minhag chashuv, then it would seem that what we disagree about is whether or not Rav Huna is "talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq". You say definitely, ie "definitely talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq". I don't think this is right at all. I believe Rav Huna is talking about a common practice performed by the people *in light of ReBY's psak* Which is precisely why he phrases it as "minhag k'ReBY". Because the fact that there was a psak from ReBY is critical to his understanding. It is what makes it a minhag choshuv (and not a minhag garua). Just as the Ri and the Rosh and the Shach say that the definition of a minhag chasuv is that it is "al pi talmid chacham". This is "al pi talmid chacham" - the psak of ReBY, which is key to what drove the people. No ReBY, no such minhag. And R' Huna is expressing this clearly by linking the minhag with the psak of ReBY. <> Not quite. If we didn't have the girsa we do in Ta'anis, ie we had the girsa that Rashi and Tosfos in Eruvin seem to have had, I would say this was a minhag garua. Problem is, our girsa in Ta'anis doesn't just say, we don't protest, but we don't make them do over again or go back (given that in Ta'anis we are talking about kohanim duchaning at nei'lah, presumably that means we don't have the Shatz resay the non duchaning language, after the kohanim have ostensibly duchened, or make the kohanim sit down once they have said the bracha). That suggests that we do in fact protest if we can get to them before they get started duchening. I don't think something that the chachamim were prepared to protest, even if the view they are protesting is based on the psak of a Talmud Chacham, can be considered any kind of minhag, except perhaps a minhag taus. <> I agree it is all in the labels, but I thought there was something more fundamental here. My understanding of your position was that if the people were following a particular psak (such as the people following the psak of ReBY or the people following the psak of Rabbi Yehuda not to work on the morning of erev pesach), that could not be called minhag. Rathein your view minhag, including minhag choshuv, had to be something that was generated by the people themselves, like milchigs on Shavuos, ie completely bottom up. That is why I could not see how you characterised what R' Huna said, of minhag k'ReBY as minhag, as it didn't seem to fit. Whereas my understanding of a minhag chashuv was that it needed to have at its root a psak of a Rav, with the bottom up aspect of it being the people's, or a community of people's, decision to take on that particular psak, even in the face of disagreement from other Rabbonim. That seems to fit perfectly with Rav Huna's statement of minhag k'ReBY. I thus understand a completely bottom up minhag as falling within the category of minhag garua (or just minhag)- although even within that category, there are those that have strong rabbinic approval, and those that have weak to non-existent rabbinic approval (depending on how garua they are). But like your minhag chashuv, my minhag garua does have to relate to something religious/halachic, even though at some point one reaches a situation where the rabbis come out full force against what the people are doing. The reason I am so vague about the line between minhag garua and minhag taus, is that this line seems very difficult to define, Ie at what point does a minhag which is very garua tip into a minhag taus seems hard for me to pinpoint (I have been looking at two cases of very dodgy minhagim, namely women in states of tuma'ah - both involving, inter alia, women not going to shul - one during their periods, and one in the period after giving birth, and the attitudes towards them couldn't be more different. The one is reasonably accepted as something of an acceptable minhag, with some rabbinic blessing, even though the origins are difficult, and it is clear it is solely women generated, while the other gets the full minhag taus, must be stamped out, treatment, at least amongst some. Even though on first glance they would seem to be directly parallel). While you, I thought given that you characterised what I called minhag garua as being minhag chasuv, understood minhag garua as being something done even by non-Jews that had halachic impact, which didn't seem to me to be what was being discussed in the gemora in Pesachim at any point, and hence not the subject of the Ri and Rosh's distinction there. -Micha Regards Chana From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 14:38:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 17:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: free public transport on Shabbos/Yomtov In-Reply-To: <004401d644dc$61126e20$23374a60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004401d644dc$61126e20$23374a60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200702213852.GD25994@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 08:20:35PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > There are a fair number of shops, but there are a fair number of houses too > (and some blocks of flats, definitely majority Jewish). We know people who > live in a couple of the houses right on Golders Green road... A balebatishe comment: It needn't be people right on the road, though. Bus lines are routed to serve neighborhoods. Even if it were a street entirely of shops and other commercial enterprises, a route would take into account any residential areas that are in easy walking distance to any stops. Which is certainly true of what I remember from Golder's Green Road. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless http://www.aishdas.org/asp he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. Author: Widen Your Tent Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 15:23:32 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:23:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 00:29 Zev Sero via Avodah, wrote: > On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking > > and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul > > shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking > > with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. > > Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. > The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the > food gets hot of its own accord. > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and metal heated by a magnetic field? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 15:45:36 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:45:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <20200702141404.GB25994@aishdas.org> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Simon Montagu Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 01:44 Subject: Re: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status To: Micha Berger On Thu, 2 Jul 2020, 17:14 Micha Berger, wrote: > > The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't > apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for > refu'ah beShabbos. > > Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the > gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their > motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking > via fir > Lo p'log is not a universal. There are plenty of cases where hazal and the pos'kim explore in which scenarios gezeirot are or are not relevant (as opposed to implementation details in what is essentially the same situation, such as pianos or violins on shabbat). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 15:58:34 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:58:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais haVaad] Police Protection: Are Officers Liable for Injuries They Inflict? Message-ID: <20200702225834.GA17037@aishdas.org> I think this topic has crossed all of our minds lately. >From https://www.baishavaad.org/police-protection-are-officers-liable-for-injuries-they-inflict/ Tir'u baTov! -Micha The Bais HaVaad Halacha Center Police Protection: Are Officers Liable for Injuries They Inflict? Adapted from the writings of Dayan Yitzhak Grossman July 2, 2020 On June 12, Atlanta Police Department officers Garrett Rolfe and Devin Brosnan were attempting to handcuff Rayshard Brooks and arrest him for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Brooks wrestled with the officers, seized Brosnan's Taser, and attempted to flee. With Rolfe pursuing him, Brooks turned and fired the Taser toward Rolfe. Rolfe then shot at Brooks three times, striking him twice in the back and killing him. Rolfe was subsequently charged with felony murder and ten other offenses. In considering Rolfe's possible culpability for killing Brooks, the first issue is whether the shooting was justified as self-defense. We do not consider here this specific question, but only the general question of the liability of a duly authorized agent of the state for the use of force resulting in injury or death. Agents of the court In the Mishnah, Abba Sha'ul rules that a father who strikes his son, a teacher who disciplines his student, and an agent of the court, who accidentally kill, are not subject to the law of exile (galus).[1] The Tosefta rules similarly with regard to civil liability for nonlethal injury: The father, the teacher, and the agent of the court are all exempt, unless the force used is "more than is appropriate," in which case they are liable.[2] An alternate formulation appears elsewhere in the Tosefta: The agent is exempt if he injures inadvertently (b'shogeg), but liable if he injures deliberately (b'meizid), "out of concern for tikun olam."[3] R' Shimon ben Tzemach Duran explains that these two formulations are equivalent: If the force used is "appropriate" but nevertheless results in injury, the agent is considered shogeg, but if it is "more than is appropriate," he is considered meizid. He also explains that the liability in the case of meizid is in accordance with the normal laws of torts, and the concern for tikun olam is the rationale for the exemption of shogeg, i.e., Chazal absolved a shogeg from liability despite the principle of adam muad l'olam, by which people are usually held liable for torts committed b'shogeg.[4] It would seem that according to this approach, "shogeg" here has its general meaning of an act that while inadvertent, nevertheless has an element of negligence to it, and so would engender liability were it not for the concern for tikun olam, since it would seem absurd for an agent of the court who carried out his duty entirely properly to be liable for its consequences (were it not for tikun olam), any more than the court itself and its agents would be liable as tortfeasors for the very imposition of punishment such as lashes or execution upon a miscreant![5] In apparent contradiction to the assumption of the Tosefta that an agent of the court is not authorized to use more force than necessary to carry out his duty stands a ruling of Rabbeinu Yerucham ben Meshulam, accepted by some poskim, that an agent of the court who strikes the body or damages the property of a recalcitrant person is exempt even if he was able to accomplish his goal by other means.[6] It seems that this opinion understands that the availability of nonviolent means does not automatically render the use of violence "more than is appropriate." Thus in Rabbeinu Yerucham's case, although alternative nonviolent means were available, once the agent chose to utilize violence, the level of force he used was the minimum necessary to accomplish his goal, whereas in the case of the Tosefta, the level of force utilized was gratuitously high. Alternatively, some contemporary writers consider it self-evident that Rabbeinu Yerucham concedes that the authorities have no right to use "excessive" and "unreasonable" force relative to the goal of preserving the rule of law.[7] Perhaps, then, when the Tosefta assigns liability where the force used was "more than is appropriate," it is referring to just such "excessive" and "unreasonable" force. In any event, other poskim disagree with Rabbeinu Yerucham's ruling and maintain that an agent of the court is only exempt from liability for the use of force if he had no other means to achieve his goal.[8] The exemption of an agent of the court only applies provided force was used in order to compel compliance with the court's directives, but not when motivated by anger.[9] Some contemporary writers assume that a police officer would have the same status as the "agent of the court" discussed by Chazal and would therefore be exempt from liability insofar as his use of force was appropriate. __________________________________________________________________ [1]Makkos 2:2. Cf. Rambam and Ra'avad Hilchos Rotzeiach Ushmiras Hanefesh 5:6, and Bnei V'lechem Yehudah, Bnei Shmuel, Gur Aryeh, Hamei'ir La'aretz, Kruv Mimshach, Ma'asei Rokeach, Mirkeves Hamishneh, Ein Tarshish, and Shufrei D'Yaakov ibid.; Shu"t Shevus Yaakov cheilek 3 siman 140; R. Yehuda Zoldan, Tzidkas Yehuda V'Yisrael, siman 6 os 1; R. Moshe Taragin, Shliach Bais Din Sheharag Beshogeg. One version of the Tosefta contains a position contrary to that of Abba Sha'ul; see Or Sameiach Hilchos Rotzeiach 5:6 and Tzidkas Yehuda V'Yisrael ibid. [2]Tosefta Bava Kama 9:3. [3]Ibid. Gittin 3:13. [4]Shu"t Tashbatz cheilek 3 siman 82. [5]This is certainly true according to the poskim that maintain that the principle of adam muad l'olam does not apply to oness gamur (see Tosafos Bava Kama 27b s.v. uShmuel amar; Shulchan Aruch C.M. 378:1-3 and Shach ibid. s.k. 1). [6]Sefer Maysharim Nesiv 31 cheilek 2 p. 92 second column, cited by Sema C.M. siman 8 s.k. 25 and Ba'er Heitev ibid. s.k. 8. [7]Adv. Yaakov Shapiro and Dr. Michael Vigoda, Shimush B'choach al Yedei Hamishtarah, n. 33. [8]Toras Chaim Bava Kama end of daf 28; Shevus Yaakov cheilek 1 siman 180, cited in Pis'chei Teshuvah ibid. s.k. 6; Sha'ar Mishpat ibid. s.k. 2; Aruch Hashulchan ibid. se'if 6; Yeshuos Yisrael ibid. Ein Mishpat s.k. 2 and Chukas Hamishpat s.k. 6. Erech Shai ibid. se'if 5 concludes that the matter is a s'feika d'dina. Cf. Halacha Pesukah ibid. p. 86 n. 214. [9]Shu"t Ra'anach (Yerushalayim 5720) siman 111 p. 475. Cf. Shevus Ya'akov cheilek 3 end of siman 140 and Shimush B'choach al Yedei Hamishtarah. From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 16:02:21 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:02:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200702230221.GA7250@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 01:23:32AM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: >> Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. >> The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the >> food gets hot of its own accord. > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and > metal heated by a magnetic field? I believe Zev is saying that the induction cooker doesn't cause any metal to glow. However, when you cook on an old-school electric stove, the coil will glow. And glowing is included in "eish". (I'm not sure about the last part. I think it would depend on whether causing a gachales shel mateches is bishul or havarah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. http://www.aishdas.org/asp Life is about creating yourself. Author: Widen Your Tent - George Bernard Shaw - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From zev at sero.name Thu Jul 2 17:03:56 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 20:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: On 2/7/20 6:23 pm, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > Glowing hot metal is included in "fire".? Here there is no fire at all. > The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the > food gets hot of its own accord. > > > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and > metal heated by a magnetic field? The pot or pan doesn't get nearly hot enough to qualify as fire. It doesn't have to, since it's heating the food directly, rather than heating a pot sitting on top of it, which will then heat the food it contains. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Thu Jul 2 17:02:12 2020 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 00:02:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Realities of Times Past (Was: Latecomers to shul on Friday night) Message-ID: R?Akiva Miller asks (38/54) a typically thoughtful question about adding Magen Avot on Friday night. The reasoning and realities are difficult to understand, he notes, and so he asks, ?There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better?? I don?t have any answers for him but I have similar questions about reasons given for other changes in halacha. For example, we don?t blow shofar on RH that falls on Shabbat (thus missing out on a Biblical commandment) because of three maybes: (a) maybe someone will be blowing who doesn?t know how to do do properly, (b) maybe that will happen on a Shabbat RH, and (c) maybe that person will carry the shofar in a reshut harabim to an expert for instruction. Well, how often would that occur? Was this common in those days? And if so, why? It?s not common today for shofar blowers to go to experts on RH to give them instruction. And equally difficult fir me to understand, wasn?t there some other way to prevent the triple maybe sin of carrying other than making all the Jewish people for generations on end miss out on a once a year biblical commandment.? Was society so different that this was really an otherwise unmanageable problem at the time the ruling was put into effect? To paraphrase Akiva, there?s something that I'm missing about the realities of that time; can anyone explain the reasoning better? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From marty.bluke at gmail.com Fri Jul 3 00:13:36 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 10:13:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop Message-ID: R? Simon Montagu asked: > That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a > Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for > the gezeira seem to apply.... This would seem to be a classic case of davar shebminyan tzorich minyan acher lhatiro which we don?t have. There are many gezeras that we observe today even though the reason behind the gezera no longer applies. For example, taking medicine on shabbos is prohibited because you may grind the ingredients. In today?s world of pills the reason no longer applies yet most poskim still prohibit taking pills for something like a headache. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:17:50 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 17:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200706211750.GA10250@aishdas.org> Someone pointed me to https://www.torahbase.org/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%A0%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D See section 6. R' Asher Weid isn't comfortable have a nakhri cook for you by microwave. Something I had thought was pretty commonly accepted. In this case, he allws, but only because the situation that required getting a housekeeper to cook is a she'as hadechaq, and because hiring a Jewish housekeeper would be a hotza'ah merubah. Only adding the lack of aish as a yeish le'ayein and is willing to use it as an additional "chazi le'itztarufei". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he http://www.aishdas.org/asp brought an offering. But to bring an offering, Author: Widen Your Tent you must know where to slaughter and what - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 01:31:54 2020 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:31:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Realities of Times Past (Was: Latecomers to shul on Friday night) Message-ID: Fellow Ovedim have (IIRC at the behest of RAM who asked the question) been wondering why Tefillat Me'eyn Sheva' is said on Friday evenings. RJK particularly cited RAM: > "The reasoning and realities are difficult to understand," he notes, " > and so," he asks: "There's something that I'm missing about the > realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they > davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain > the story better?" There may be a clue in an article by Jacob Mann. Jacob Mann was, as far as I can reconstruct, a Pzsworsker Chassid who loved Judaism and learning, but upon landing the USA possibly tragically aligned himself with the wrong crowd. But this is just a reconstruction. For all I know, him publishing a bunch of articles in the Reform"Hebrew Union College Annual" may have been because it was in his eyes the most widespread scholarly publication, one that would afford him the most exposure. Interestingly, he insisted on transliterating Hebrew into Ashkenazi pronunciation, and HUCA agreed. At any rate, he was a pretty interesting historian of liturgy and may have been on to certain things correctly. In an article entitled Changes in the Divine Service of the Synagogue due to Persecution, he brings evidence for several periods of anti Jewish persecutions in which certain prayers or practices were prohibited, giving rise to creative solutions. Though he does not deal with Me'eyn Sheva' (as far as I remember), the setting seems to work well. Perhaps Me'eyn Sheva came from a time when Jews had to pray outside the settlements, because they were praying in hiding, and thus had to watch out for each other's safety. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 03:59:50 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:59:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status Message-ID: Rav Hershel Schachter has a fascinating essay in his Sefer about when we say lo plug by gezeros and when not. It has been a while but I believe he says that gezeros are all lo plug except if the reason was written into the nusach of the gezera. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 13:16:24 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 16:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200707201624.GE25868@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 01:59:50PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Rav Hershel Schachter has a fascinating essay in his Sefer about when we > say lo plug by gezeros and when not. It has been a while but I believe he > says that gezeros are all lo plug except if the reason was written into the > nusach of the gezera. The problem is, that determination is often non-trivial to make. Where is the end-quote -- is the explanation part of the quote of the wording of the gezeira, or the gemara's explanation of its purpose stated and stated after the quote? We discussed this idea many years ago, when I proposed this was the root of the machloqes about basar kafui. Very related is that it is also sometimes unclear when something is a pesaq in existing law, and when a gezeira. If it's a pesaq, then applicability is built in whether or not it's stated. Pesaqim only hold if the situation is materially the same. What the gemara says about putting out a burning house on Shabbos wouldn't apply to a wood-frame house in an urban or most suburban settings because the risk to life is simply different. Like the Peri Chadash vs the Chasam Sofer about chalav yisrael; the PC says CY is a pesaq, so he has little problem saying that CY is moot when there is other disincentive to adulterating the milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness http://www.aishdas.org/asp which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost Author: Widen Your Tent again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Jul 7 14:44:42 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 21:44:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Risk Reward Message-ID: <1594171681704.0f3bd39e3250de82@aishdas.org> A note I wrote To a pulpit rabbi: I strongly support a recent discussion concerning return to synagogue. I do have to say that there's one point that I deeply disagree on. Maybe it's a matter of nuance that cannot be communicated in trying times to the general public. I don't believe that flattening the curve has no halachic import. In fact as a community we are always making this kind of trade off. If not why wouldn't we spend every dollar we have on improving public health. The answer per R' Schachter and R' Weiss is that's the way the world operates. Bottom line risk reward tradeoffs are often very difficult. Personally I'd prefer we be more open and honest about them and have public discussion but realize that may not be practical So what is the halachic philosophy of risk/reward? perhaps a starting point The cohain gadol and the alternates for himself or wife on Yom Kippur? Kt Joel Rich From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 19:15:59 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 22:15:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Francis Collins on Science and Religion Message-ID: <20200708021559.GA27334@aishdas.org> An interview with Dr. Francis Collins (an Obama appointee now most famous for being Dr. Anthony Fauci's boss). https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/anthony-faucis-boss-on-why-things-could-be-much-better-soon.html Three snippets that are on topic for our group, but there is more discussion of G-d there than this: "I was an atheist when I entered medical school. I was a Christian when I left and it was much driven by this experience of trying to integrate the reductionist aspects of science into the much more fundamental issues I saw my patients wrestling with, like is there a God and does God care about me and what happens after I die? "Those are uncomfortable questions for an atheist 23-year-old, but ultimately they became totally compelling and required some investigation and some answers. Ultimately, out of that, it came to me that it makes a lot more sense to believe in God than to deny God's existence. A scientist isn't supposed to make assertions that you would call universal negatives, because you can never have enough evidence to do that, and yet that's what atheism calls you to do. ... "Similarly, the way that some people have caricatured science as a threat to God, that doesn't resemble the science that I'm doing. It's been a terrible, I think, consequence of our last century or so that this polarization has been accepted as inevitable when I see it not at all in that light. There are many interesting scientific questions that tap into the kind of area that you're asking about, like what is the neuroscientific basis of consciousness? What is the neuroscientific basis of a spiritual experience? If there is such a neuroscientific basis, does that make this spiritual experience less meaningful or more so? Those are fun conversations to have." "... What is our future? I don't want to see a future where this science-versus-faith conflict leads to a winner and a loser. If science wins and faith loses, we end up with a purely technological society that has lost its moorings and foundation for morality. I think that could be a very harsh and potentially violent outcome. But I don't want to see a society either where the argument that science is not to be trusted because it doesn't agree with somebody's interpretation of a Bible verse wins out. That forces us back into a circumstance where many of the gifts that God has given us through intellectual curiosity and the tools of science have to be put away. "So I want to see a society that flourishes by bringing these worldviews together by being careful about which worldview is most likely to give you the truth, depending on the question you're asking." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole http://www.aishdas.org/asp heart, your entire soul, and all you own." Author: Widen Your Tent Love is not two who look at each other, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:30:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714183052.GC21268@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:40:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate > dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), > as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will > be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised > (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- > r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? I'm uncomfortable with your formulation, but I think I agree with your point. As microelectronics become more embedded in society, it's harder to consider their use uvda dechol. So pesaqim ought change. In RMF's case.... What changed over time was not whether a given fact was uvda dechol. He assumed that use of a timer would pose mar'is ayin issues, and that metzi'us changed. A close parallel, but not exactly the same. And yes, it could well be the tzibbur who make that point known to the posqim. (Especially today, when the gedolim we look to for pesaq often are men who never left yeshiva life. As opposed to the previous generations when we looked to the town's rav for pesaqim.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward http://www.aishdas.org/asp by patting yourself on the back. Author: Widen Your Tent -Anonymous - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:30:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714183052.GC21268@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:40:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate > dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), > as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will > be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised > (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- > r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? I'm uncomfortable with your formulation, but I think I agree with your point. As microelectronics become more embedded in society, it's harder to consider their use uvda dechol. So pesaqim ought change. In RMF's case.... What changed over time was not whether a given fact was uvda dechol. He assumed that use of a timer would pose mar'is ayin issues, and that metzi'us changed. A close parallel, but not exactly the same. And yes, it could well be the tzibbur who make that point known to the posqim. (Especially today, when the gedolim we look to for pesaq often are men who never left yeshiva life. As opposed to the previous generations when we looked to the town's rav for pesaqim.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward http://www.aishdas.org/asp by patting yourself on the back. Author: Widen Your Tent -Anonymous - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:21:12 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Yehareig velo ya'avor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I posted on this issue here and on another list: >> If a Ben Noach [Noahide, i.e. non-Jew] is being forced to abrogate >> one of his 7 mitzvot... > I received this [from Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter]: >> If you accept the authority of Rambam, this is black-letter law. See Sefer >> Shoftim, Hilkhoth Mlakhim UMilxmotheyhem, Chapter 10, Paragraph 2: "A Ben-Noax >> who is compelled to violate one of his commandments is allowed to do so > Thanks for the cite! If you check out the mishneh lmelech there For those who didn't look, it's at: https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rtype=%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98&mfid=104611&rid=15005 > he refers > to the parshat drachim derech atarim (drasha #2) who makes exactly the > argument I proposed as why a ben noach would be required to give up his > life rather than kill someone. But also says "debishfichus damim mitzvah haben-noach sheyeihareig ve'al ya'avor". By making it about "mai chazis" it isn't about the 7 mitzvos in general, or even the other two mitzvos that for Jews are yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Rather, because the only question is who dies, not the comparative values are life vs obedience. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation http://www.aishdas.org/asp -- just think of an incurable disease such as Author: Widen Your Tent inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:25:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:25:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:38:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger wrote: >> But in general, there is an increasing reluctance to pasqen in >> some circles. Whether Brisker chumeros or the MB's advice to >> either play safe in some places or avoid the question in another. >> So, we're seeing more and more of it. > I spent a couple of minutes trying to think of examples of this phenomenon, > and I ended up agreeing that this *seems* to be more common in hilchos > brachos... > However, in most other areas of halacha, it's not a choice of this or that. > It's a question of issur and heter. (Or of chiyuv and not.) In such cases, > "avoiding the situation" tends to be synonymous with "being machmir".... I would agree for the "defy the question" pesaqim being more common in hilkhos berakhos. But I don't see Brisker chumeros or baal nefesh yachmir being more of a berakhah thing. Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of safeiq would be lehaqeil. My largely implied question was how to save this reluctance to pasqen from accusations of lack of faith in the entire concept of pesaq and deciding halakhah. Nu, so for the Briskers, I takeh think they don't believe that a pesaq settles the din anymore. As the Rambam put it, Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah. But for the CC and the rest of us? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; http://www.aishdas.org/asp Experience comes from bad decisions. Author: Widen Your Tent - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From zev at sero.name Tue Jul 14 12:29:37 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Yehareig velo ya'avor In-Reply-To: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> References: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <27345b4a-f329-cfd4-8b0f-8b8be1147f72@sero.name> >> Thanks for the cite! If you check out the mishneh lmelech there > > For those who didn't look, it's at: > https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rtype=%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98&mfid=104611&rid=15005 > >> he refers >> to the parshat drachim derech atarim (drasha #2) who makes exactly the >> argument I proposed as why a ben noach would be required to give up his >> life rather than kill someone. > > But also says "debishfichus damim mitzvah haben-noach sheyeihareig ve'al > ya'avor". By making it about "mai chazis" it isn't about the 7 mitzvos > in general, or even the other two mitzvos that for Jews are yeihareig > ve'al ya'avor. Rather, because the only question is who dies, not the > comparative values are life vs obedience. Thank you. However if the Rambam agreed with this it's odd that he didn't say so. And the svara against it seems fairly simple: Yisrael are commanded in kiddush haShem; we're expected to sometimes put obedience ahead of our lives. Therefore when considering for which mitzvos we must do so, the svara of "mai chazis" compels us to include this. It wouldn't make sense to say that for AZ we must be moser nefesh, but for shfichas damim we needn't. But for Bnei Noach the whole concept of mesirus nefesh doesn't exist. They are never expected to do that; we have an explicit pasuk that they're even allowed to serve AZ rather than die. So how can we tell them to sacrifice themselves for mai chazis? On the contrary, they will tell you exactly mai chazina -- this is my life and that is his. To *me* my life is more important than his, just as I expect that to *him* his life is more important than mine. Just as I would give my life to save my children, because theirs are more important to me than mine, so I will give your life to save mine, because mine is more important to me than yours. It's only once the principle that there is something higher than survival is established that we can extend it with mai chazis. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Tue Jul 14 12:55:07 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:55:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <722273ba-58af-d192-57ea-032a8f9cd3e5@sero.name> On 14/7/20 2:25 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Nu, so for the Briskers, I takeh think they don't believe that a pesaq > settles the din anymore. As the Rambam put it, Rav Ashi veRavina sof > hora'ah. Or, they believe in psak in principle, but not in their own ability to pasken, and they're not too sure about your ability either, or his or his or his. But I think there's also a good helping of the gemara's statement that a baal nefesh doesn't eat meat on which a psak was required; as the proverb goes, "a shayla macht treif". Only if the heter is found explicitly in the sources, so that no reasoning was needed can one eat the meat without any qualms. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 03:25:38 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 06:25:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue Message-ID: . R" Micha Berger wrote: > Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't > which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because > there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of > safeiq would be lehaqeil. Safeiq "rather than" pesaq?? Can the two be differentiated? Isn't psak *based* on safek, trying to figure out where Truth resides? > My largely implied question was how to save this reluctance to > pasqen from accusations of lack of faith in the entire concept > of pesaq and deciding halakhah. As I see it, it's not that we have a lack of *faith* in psak, but that we're so confused about how it works. And especially, how it works nowadays when there's no Sanhedrin. To me, the classic case in bitul is bitul b'rov. Does the minority really lose its identity to the point that all pieces can be eaten by a single person at one time? Or is it only a procedural psak, such that we are fearful for each item, and they must be shared among several people, or eaten by one person at different times, etc etc. And it carries through to psak too. Can I really ignore the minority opinion? Without a Sanhedrin to actually discuss and vote, how can I be sure that the other camp is wrong? And so, just as we "avoided the issue" by having several people share the probably-kosher items, we also "avoid the issue" in psak by finding a situation where we don't choose between the several opinions. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 15 02:48:25 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:48:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] action or results? Message-ID: There are four identical quadruplets brothers, Robert, Simon, Larry and Judah. Robert , Larry and Simon are all asymptomatic carriers of the corona virus but Judah is not. The local law and rabbinic authorities require wearing a mask when going out in public but none of them do. The four brothers are not clearly identifiable, when seen, as orthodox Jews but are so known by the public. They all go outside to identical public events where their identities are not known. Robert infects a number of people but he's never identified as the source of the infection. Larry infects a number of people and is identified as a source of infection in the media. Judah never infects anybody and neither does Simon. What shows up on each brothers' permanent record card in shamayim? Is it multidimensional? 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 JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 15 02:50:41 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? 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 zev at sero.name Wed Jul 15 07:03:18 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5622a8f8-7434-2f3e-086c-d0052a01ff28@sero.name> On 15/7/20 5:50 am, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required to > give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol > worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching > theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and > not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? I don't believe there is. These three are not worse than other sins. E.g. murder is only an issur hereg, and is therefore *less* severe than any issur skila and sreifa. So the term "Big 3" is a misnomer; they're in the category for being big. And they didn't all get in to the category in the same way. Avoda Zara comes from the pasuk "venikdashti". Murder comes in from the svara of "mai chazis". And all the arayos come in because of the pasuk that compares eshes ish to murder, so they are included in the "mai chazis" even though that svara doesn't apply to them! Which is very strange. Then there are other mitzvos that also *obviously* override pikuach nefesh, so obviously that they don't need to be listed, such as milchemes mitzvah. (For that matter, since one is required to go even to a milchemes hareshus if the king conscripts one, that too must override pikuach nefesh. And obviously war overrides venishmartem.) Bris also involves a certain level of risk, and historically it was just accepted that a certain number of babies will die from it, and that we have to accept this. So to that extent it also overrides pikuach nefesh, until the risk rises high enough to change that. Losing one child obviously increases the probability of there being a genetic defect in the family, and yet it is not enough to cancel future brissen in that family. Only a second loss does that. Then we have a pasuk that earning a living justifies taking certain risks with ones life; while I wouldn't call this overriding pikuach nefesh or venishmartem, it obviously puts a limit on those principles that many people don't consciously acknowledge. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 15:13:54 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200715221354.GF8072@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:50:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required > to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol > worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching > theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and > not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? One is the greatest violation of Torah, one of Avodah, and one of Gemilus Chassadim. AZ as the inverse of Avodah and Murder as the inverse of Gema"ch shouldn't need elaboration. As for arayos... In the Maharal's commentary on that mishnah, he describes the three amudei olam as a relationship with one's soul, with G-d and with other people. Torah perfects the relatiosionship with oneself. Whereas someone who pursues arayos turns that self into a menuval. Torah is about perfection of the mind, middos and the rest of the soul. Arayos is about giving up on all that and just answering to the body. Living cannot be at the expense of an axe to a pillar one's life stands on. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of http://www.aishdas.org/asp greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, Author: Widen Your Tent in fact, of our modesty. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 05:42:49 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 08:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required > to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of > idol worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one > overarching theme that links these three transgressions that explains > why these and not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? If there's an overarching theme, I haven't found it yet. I have tried to find the reason for each of these three, what makes them different than the other 610, and I've come up with very different answers for each of them. If I'm not mistaken, murder is the only one for which the Gemara gives an explicit reason. If my life is at stake, and the only solution is at the cost of someone else's life, who's to say that my blood is redder? Simple math. Or simple logic, your choice. Next is avodah zara. I came up with this answer myself, so I eagerly welcome any comments about it. My logic is like this: An inventive mind can come up with all sorts of justifications for violating mitzvos in extreme circumstances. "Violate this Shabbos so he will keep many other Shabbosos," for example. Eliyahu built a bamah on Har Carmel, because he knew it would lead to Kiddush Hashem. But Avoda Zara is the sort of thing where - by definition - the means NEVER justify the ends. There is NO situation in which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be Kiddush Hashem. It's a contradiction in terms. Even the opportunity to do mitzvos for the rest of my life can't justify an actual Avodah Zara today. (I'm not talking about where someone merely pretends to do Avodah Zara; that's a more complicated topic and might be justified by some poskim in some cases.) But to actually do real Avodah Zara is treason against Hashem and never allowed. That leaves Arayos. This is a very strange halacha, especially to the general culture arounds us, which accepts these acts (when done by consenting adults) as victimless pleasures, not capital crimes. Non-logical chukim. So why is it that we must avoid these acts, even at the cost of our lives? Doesn't make sense. The tentative answer I've come up with is that this halacha is meant to help insure solid family life. Society around us is falling apart, and many people think that one of the causes is that too many children grow up without strong family values. It is merely my guess, but I can't help but suspect that this is why Hashem made Arayos so very very assur, to impress this value upon us. Even if (lo aleinu) a situation actually arises, and a person is tempted to rationalize that he can do this aveirah today and live to do mitzvos tomorrow, it is still not worth it. That's the message of the severity of this halacha. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hanktopas at gmail.com Sun Jul 19 06:59:31 2020 From: hanktopas at gmail.com (Henry Topas) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 09:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: Recently, I have heard of some shuls beginning Shabbat morning davening at Nishmat or even at Shochayn Ad. This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the same Sha'tz conclude what he started? Kol tuv, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 00:59:57 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:59:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan Message-ID: Just catching up and the message from R' Joel Rich on Sun, 24 May 2020 caught my eye. RJJ wrote: > In the case of the woman putting on a tallis without tzitzis- there > was no real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis > - ie fulfil the mitzvah (except her rabbi told her not to), so why > would you be satisfied with second best. I'm not so sure about the "no real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis" part. In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar could cause carrying in a public domain. Along those lines one could argue that a tallis may also cause one to carry in the public domain if not tied properly, or strings break off, etc. Just a thought, - Danny From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Jul 20 07:02:26 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:02:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when > we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed > by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as > the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the > same Sha'tz conclude what he started? See S"A O"C 53:3 (Shatz vs. tzibbur) https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Orach_Chayim.53.3 She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, Joel Rich From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 11:26:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:59:57AM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: > In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. > > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. ... In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! So, I'm not sure why the HM needs to invoke the risk of an aveirah. Lo zakhisi lehavin. And more to our point, the lack of berakhah doesn't seem to me to prove the mitzvah itself should be avoided because it means some risk exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but the lighting of a fire. Author: Widen Your Tent - W.B. Yeats - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From cbkaufman at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 13:58:38 2020 From: cbkaufman at gmail.com (Brent Kaufman) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:58:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 (4) Message-ID: There are actually 4 big ones that one must voluntarily give one's life rather than transgress. A person is obligated to die rather than transgress any mitzvah in the Torah if one is being forced to do so publicly during a time of shmad. The Rambam lists this, but I didn't check before writing this, for its exact reference. chaimbaruch kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 19:12:11 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 22:12:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: . I wrote: > But Avoda Zara is the sort of thing where - by definition - > the means NEVER justify the ends. There is NO situation in > which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be Kiddush > Hashem. It's a contradiction in terms. I made a typing error there. What I had intended to write was: "There is NO situation in which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be *L'Shem Shamayim*. It's a contradiction in terms." It's not difficult to imagine situations (or cite historical incidents) where someone might do an aveirah L'Shem Shamayim. But that's for the other 612. It seems to me categorically impossible for someone to do actual Avoda Zara (as opposed to merely going through the motions, which is also assur, but *possibly* not yehareg v'al yaavor) for L'Shem Shamayim reasons. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 05:41:45 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:41:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: > This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when > we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed > by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as > the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the > same Sha'tz conclude what he started? I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. E.g.: We learned in a Mishna in Brachos that if the Shat"z cannot continue, a substitute continues where he left off. More common: Aveilim often switch Shat"z at Ashrei - the 2nd one saying Kadish Tiskabal (may our prayers be accepted) even though the first one said the actual Amida that this is going on. In your case, both congregants will be saying both opening and closing Brachot - so I'm not even sure what you're asking. Kol Tuv - Danny From doniels at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 05:34:42 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:34:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> References: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB commented on my thought: > In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos > that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To > the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem > in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! That's THIS VERY Rambam. > So, I'm not sure why the HM needs to invoke the risk of an aveirah. Lo > zakhisi lehavin. > > And more to our point, the lack of berakhah doesn't seem to me to prove > the mitzvah itself should be avoided because it means some risk exists. My mistake for getting you mixed up. The HM isn't commenting on Tzitzis - that part is my "chiddush"... that there's a "good reason" why women didn't wear Tzitzis over the generations. The HM was commenting IIUC why the Rambam talks about women wearing Tzitzis but not Tefillin. I can't find the HM on Sefria, or I'd link to it. Kol Tuv - Danny From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Tue Jul 21 12:08:22 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:08:22 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan Message-ID: <000001d65f92$4e243cf0$ea6cb6d0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:59:57AM +0300 RDS wrote: > In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. > > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. And then RMB responded: <> We need to back up here. There is a fundamental machlokus in the gemora between Rabbi Yehuda (supported by Rabbi Meir), and Rabbi Yossi (supported by Rabbi Shimon) as to whether women are permitted to perform mitzvos aseh she hzman grama - from which they are exempt. Rabbi Yossi says "reshus" - ie they are allowed. Rabbi Yehuda says no, it is assur for women to perform mitzvos asseh shehazman grama. And there are two explanations given for Rabbi Yehuda forbidding women performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. The first (eg by Rashi) is of Bal Tosif. That is, if the Torah says women are exempt from performing certain mitzvos, then for them to go ahead and perform them would violate the principle of bal tosif. However, most rishonim argue that bal tosif does not make sense here, and therefore most rishonim, including those who posken like Rabbi Yehuda, do so not under the principle of bal tosif, but under a principle that can be called "halachic counter-pressure". That is, even Rabbi Yehuda did not forbid all women from doing acts that constitute mitzvos (such as sitting in a sukkah on Sukkos, which, if you follow the bal tosif principle would be ossur for a women to do), but only where there are halachic counter-pressures, and the Haagahos Maimoniyos is quoting some of the halachic counter-pressures that the rishonim discuss. As we all know, we posken (both Sephardim (via the Shulchan Aruch) and Ashkenazim (via the Rema)), like Rabbi Yossi, that women *may* perform mitzvos aseh shehazman grama, and this Rambam is one of the bases for the way the Shulchan Aruch poskens. However: a) there are a significant number of rishonim who posken like Rabbi Yehuda; and b)even within Rabbi Yossi, there are those who say that Rabbi Yossi only permits where the halachic counter-pressure is something less than a Torah prohibition. If, like the Rambam, you holds that saying a bracha sheino tzricha is a Torah violation, and you hold according to this view in Rabbi Yossi, you end up with the Rambam's position. If you follow Tosfos (Ri and Rabbanu Tam), who holds that saying a bracha sheino tzricha is merely a rabbinic prohibition, then following Rabbi Yossi t would be pushed aside in the circumstance of a woman performing a mitzvah that is a reshus. So holds the Rema. For various talks I have given on this, I have drawn up the following diagrams - I don't know if they will come out in the digest form, but I think people find them useful to understand some of the complexity. [RMB, is there some way of embedding these in the digest?] If you don't get them, I am happy to email them separately. Bottom line there are a lot of rishonim who did not hold like Rabbi Yossi, and this is reflected in, inter alia, the discussion regarding tzitzis. Because while the Tur, following his father the Rosh and the Rabbanu Tam/Ran happily permit women to make blessings over shofar and lulav, he says in Tur Orech Chaim Hilchot Tzitzit siman 17 ".And the Rambam writes that they may wrap without a blessing, and he is going in his position that explains that women are not able to bless on something from which they are exempt but Rabbanu Tam writes that they are able to bless even though they are exempt and it is better that they do not bless ..". And the Bach, picking up on this seeming contradiction says (Bach Orech Chaim Siman 17) On "And it is better that they do not bless"; There is to ask from that which he writes in siman 589 in connection with shofar that even though women are exempt they are able to blow and to bless and one should not protest. And it seems to me that it seems from here that in connection with tzitzis that it is not the custom for women to wear, and to bless, if so if a woman comes to ask ab initio if it is permitted to dress in tzitzis and to bless he should say to her that she should not bless because it is better that they should not bless given the disagreement of our rabbis but with shofar where they are already accustomed to blow and to bless they do not protest since they have on whom to rely but if they come to ask ab initio also with shofar you should say to them that they should not bless and we should rely on what was written here regarding tzitzis and this is the law [also] regarding shofar." But, it seems to me, to understand this portion, it is necessary to fully understand the depth of rishonic opposition to women performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. The Hagahios Maymoniyos was one of a number of Ashkenazi rishonim who disagreed with Rabbanu Tam/Ri/Ran and held one should posken like Rabbi Yehuda. Regards Chana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 19942 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.png Type: image/png Size: 21255 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.png Type: image/png Size: 20358 bytes Desc: not available URL: From simon.montagu at mail.gmail.com Tue Jul 21 03:40:33 2020 From: simon.montagu at mail.gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:40:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:59 PM Danny Schoemann wrote: > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. What mitzva couldn't potentially cause an aveira, including ones which women do aliba dekhulei alma? Bad timing in candle-lighting could cause hillul shabbat. On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 9:34 PM Micha Berger wrote: > In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos > that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To > the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem > in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! As I may have noted before, the general trend among Sepharadi aharonim is to follow RT against the SA and Rambam, and say that women at least can, and IIIRC davka _should_ make berachot on these mitzvot. ROY, kedarko bakodesh, insists on following Maran. From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 22 02:56:47 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:56:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?God=92s_existence?= Message-ID: Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all. I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience. It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place I?m not sure that came out as clearly as I might?ve liked but I hope you get the general idea. Thoughts? She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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 bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 22 12:57:46 2020 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:57:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A couple of points relevant to the 'big 3'. Firstly, as has been noted, they are not the only situations of yeihareig v'al yaavor. In addition to the situation of sha'as ha'shmad, the yerushalmi notes that mitzvos bein adam l'chaveiro are also YVAY. Like theft. And I believe we pasken that way. BUT that's not to diminish their uniqueness as YVAY mitzvos. They are mentioned in targum yonasan as a discrete set of YVAY mitzvos, I noticed in the last couple of weeks while doing chad targum. Although I couldn't find it again when I looked. That does mean the derivation in the Bavli is way after the din was already known, by a few hundred years at the least. And points to a much more them being a much more fundamental set of 3 with an early origin in halacha. In response to RZS's point about there being no obvious connection between them, that may well be exactly because they represent the extremes of three different branches of avoda, per the Maharal, and their only connection being that they are all archetypes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 23 08:21:33 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:21:33 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: <002001d66104$f2fb7ea0$d8f27be0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RAM wrote: In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this is the one I want to ask about.) > The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation of > Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana (danger). > Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the Mishnah, shuls > were located outside of the cities where it was not safe to be alone > at night. The Rabbis were concerned that people who came late to shul > might be left alone while finishing to daven. To give latecomers a > chance to catch up and finish davening with everyone else, Chazal > extended the davening by adding Mei'ein Sheva. <> And RAF suggested: <> However it seems to me that this does not answer RAM's question, as the point RAM makes is that Me'en Sheva is a very short additional prayer, and doesn't seem to make much difference one way or the other. Can I make a different suggestion (but again only a suggestion). I have been looking at something called Teshuvat HaGeonim HaChadashot, which, according to Bar Ilan (which is where I sourced it) was published by Simcha Emanuel in Jerusalem, 1995, from a manuscript in the Baron Gunzberg library includes previously unpublished geonic responsa, as well as the writings of early proven?al scholars. In it, in a discussion on the nature of kaddish found at siman 35, the presumably Gaonic author explains the locations of all the kaddishim and after explaining where they are in relation to Shachrit and Mincha (and why) he says ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? +?' ????? ??, ?+ ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? [???] ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??[?]? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????. " And after the blessings of reciting the shema of arvit because the prayer of arvit is reshut [Brachot 27b] and perhaps a person will go out from the synagogue after they finish the blessings of emet v?emunah and will not pray there with ten, and it will be that he will go out without kaddish." That is, there was a genuine concern that because arvit was reshut, people might come to say shema together, and then leave, hence the kaddish after shema and before shmonei esrei of arvit. Now, if that was a genuine concern, then maybe that also explains me'in sheva (especially if you understand me'in sheva as requiring, or at least being ideally, said with the community as a whole). Maybe the point is that a latecomer, given that arvit is reshut, was likely simply to say shema and its blessings and not bother to say shmone esrei at all but simply walk out. However with the incentive of saying me'in sheva together with the rest of the congregation, and with other people prepared to wait for him so that the me'en sheva would be communal, he would actually daven shmonei esrei in the presence of the minyan, so that he could then say me'en sheva with it. >Akiva Miller Kind regards Chana From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 23 09:34:09 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:34:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: <003001d6610f$17ad5ed0$47081c70$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: <> I should have pointed out that this particular teshuva was signed by Rav Avraham ben Rav Yitzchak - and given that he references "a few Geonim" and "other Geonim", later in the piece, it is more likely to be someone like Abraham ben Isaac de Narbonne (1110-1179), so more of a Rishon than a Gaon, despite the name of the compilation. Kind regards Chana From wolberg at yebo.co.za Sun Jul 26 09:36:50 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 18:36:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan 32:76 Message-ID: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> [AhS Yomi for yesterday covered OC 32:73-79. https://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi -mi] Loved the line: ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? -- ??? ??? ????? ???? ???. [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." -mi] Any comment on it? From zev at sero.name Sun Jul 26 16:10:19 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:10:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan 32:76 In-Reply-To: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> References: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> Message-ID: <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> On 26/7/20 12:36 pm, wolberg--- via Avodah wrote: > [AhS Yomi for yesterday covered OC 32:73-79. https://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi > -mi] > > Loved the line: ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? -- ??? ??? ????? ???? ???. > [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- > ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. > > [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts > about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." > -mi] > > Any comment on it? I think "yeseros" here means "superfluous", rather than merely "additional". Of course that begs the question, but I think that in general it's a statement of principle, not a rule for practice, though in this instance the AhS gives his opinion on what is superfluous. (I'd also translate "ein daas chachomim nocha meihem" less literally, as "Torah authorities do not approve of them", or even, riskily, "Daas Torah does not approve of them".) -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:50:00 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daas Chachamim Noachah Heimenu In-Reply-To: <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> References: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200727105000.GA9656@aishdas.org> In translating a Hebrew quote posted to the list, I wrote: >> [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- >> ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. >> >> [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts >> about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." >> -mi] On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 07:10:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > (I'd also translate "ein daas chachomim nocha meihem" less literally, as > "Torah authorities do not approve of them", or even, riskily, "Daas Torah > does not approve of them".) I was always taught something along the lines of your first version. I think it was R Yaakov Haber that I heard this from, but the idiom could equally have been intended to me something more like (loosely) "... isn't thinking with daas Torah". I found the argument compelling enough to try to offer both translations. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From driceman at optimum.net Mon Jul 27 07:36:27 2020 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?God=E2=80=99s_existence?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> RJR: > > Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all. > I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah > We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience. > > It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al > > In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place I haven?t read RAL?s essay (link?), but doesn?t RYhL use this idea at the beginning of the Kuzari, a generation before the Rambam? David Riceman From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Jul 27 09:04:15 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:04:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?God=E2=80=99s_existence?= In-Reply-To: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> References: , <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> Message-ID: <1E4BB098-3996-4C02-9BE1-6CA8B3672151@Segalco.com> I haven?t read RAL?s essay (link?), https://www.etzion.org.il/en/source-faith-faith-itself 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:14:27 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:14:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727201427.GC12492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 06:25:38AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R" Micha Berger wrote: >> Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't >> which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because >> there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of >> safeiq would be lehaqeil. > Safeiq "rather than" pesaq?? Can the two be differentiated? Isn't psak > *based* on safek, trying to figure out where Truth resides? Not safeiq rather than pesaq, "rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq". More reliance on safeiq deOraisa lehachmir, safeiq derabbanan lequlah -- unless efshar levareir / it's easy enough to be machmir. Of course, a baal nefesh may have a different definition of "easy enough". As opposed to looking to which shitah is stated by the gadol bekhochmah uveminyan (minyan rabbanim, rav with bigger following [looking at the Rambam or the Rosh...]), the logic of the sevara behind each possible pesaq, looking to see which pesaq was apparently accepted for how long and how broadly, hefsed meruba, kavod haberios... You know, the rules of pesaq. These latter kind of rules tend to be invoked less often than in the past. I think it comes from the Gra's position on the comparative unreality of pesaq after Rav Ashi and Ravina, taking the Rambam's "sof hora'ah" quite literally. Picked up by the Soloveitchiks, and with the popularity of Brisk among those who pasqen today... Add to that the whole concept of lomdus. Whether Brisker or other derakhim. When you value sevara much more than the other factors posqim have to balance, and you learn how to explain the sevara of all sides of a machloqes... There are fewer times the remaining rules of pesaq rise to the level of giving a clear answer. My latter two paragraphs feed into: > As I see it, it's not that we have a lack of *faith* in psak, but that > we're so confused about how it works. And especially, how it works nowadays > when there's no Sanhedrin. But we seem to disagree mostly on description rather than content: > And it carries through to psak too. Can I really ignore the minority > opinion? Without a Sanhedrin to actually discuss and vote, how can I be > sure that the other camp is wrong? ... "How can I be sure" IS a lack of faith in our ability to pasqen, as I would use the terms. Maybe the insecurity comes from a lack of surity we know how to do it right. I would still call it a lack of faith. If you don't think pesaq can be done the way the Rif, the Rambam, the Tur, the SA, the Levush, etc... did, that their precedent doesn't tell you how to decide which of the eilu va'eilu should become halakhah lemaaseh, that lack of faith in how to do pesaq has scary implications. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:19:21 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:19:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] action or results? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727201921.GD12492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:48:25AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > There are four identical quadruplets brothers, Robert, Simon, Larry and > Judah. Robert , Larry and Simon are all asymptomatic carriers of the > corona virus but Judah is not... > They all go outside to identical public events where their identities are > not known. Robert infects... > What shows up on each brothers' permanent record card in shamayim? Is > it multidimensional? Rachmana liba ba'i. Their records show each one's lack of concern for other's safety. Consequences, if they are correlated at all and some other aspect of hashgachah doesn't overwhelm this rule, megalgelim chov al yedei chayav. Which implies that who gets whom sick would at most be *indicative* of guilt for this or other deeds, not the actual thing he is guilty of. A person isn't judged for the results of their actions, or even for their actions themselves. (So, I'm denying both sides of the question in the subject line.) A person is judged "ba'asher hu sham" -- what kind of changes those decisions and actions made in themselves. I would take it for granted it's multidimensional. The person's "permanent record card" is their own soul. And the effects of their actions can improve one thing about the soul while damaging something else about it. A comparatively easy example is tact. a person can make a person that makes them more truthful, but gains that Emes at the expense of their drive for Shalom. And even without the previous paragraphs, Hashem isn't a Vatra -- the person will get the Tov that a more Emesdik soul has a beis qibbul for, and get less of the Tov that comes with losing some passion for Shalom. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:00:57 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727210057.GF12492@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: >> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when >> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed >> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as >> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the >> same Sha'tz conclude what he started? > I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. I called it an office, not the occupent. But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same idea. I have a theory why: I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a *shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:54:22 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:54:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] God's existence In-Reply-To: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> References: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20200727205422.GE12492@aishdas.org> RDR mentioned the Kuzari before I found the time to reply. I think what changed was in the discipline of philosophy. In the days of the rishonim, Philosophy was itself a kind of religion. Look at the opening paragraphs of ch. 1 of the Kuzari -- the king's survey includes a Philosopher (1:1), a Muslim, a Christian, and then the chaver. A Jewish Philosopher was a Scholasticist. Such that Rihal, even though the Kuzari is a book of philosophy as we now use the term, saw himself as anti-Philosophy. Then came the scientific method and people realizing the power and limitations of testing things empirically. The tensions between the Empiricists, who trusted these methods, and the Idealists, who wanted all knowledge to be as sound as Math, coming from self-evident postulates. And then the Kantian Revolution through to Existentialism and now Post-Modernism, etc... Philosophy less based on a confidence of being able to prove what's out there and more focused on describing the world as experienced. I argued here a few years back that this is what drove the popularity of universal hashgachah peratis. It's less a break from how rishonim understood HP than looking at a different topic. To the rishonim, a discussion of HP is all about its contrast to nature, randomness, bechirah chofshi, etc... Nowadays, the discussion of HP is about what it is we have bitachon in, how much hishatadlus do we need to invest given that what happens is decided by hashgachah... R Yehudah haLevi had a lack of faith in the idea that we can decisively prove that's really out there. That's for Greeks, who lack the more sure source of data -- mesorah. (1:13, 1:63) That mesorah part isn't very Modern in terms of the discipline of philosophy, but not believing we can ever really prove anything... Well, take this quote from 1:13: "Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved." Sounds downright Post-Modern! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Jul 28 19:19:28 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 22:19:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why did Chazal cancel shiva bc of Yom tov Message-ID: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> Many have recently written how they have missed the full traditional comforting process of shiva due to corona restrictions. That has reawakened in me the question of why did Chazal cancel shiva because of Yom tov? If the catharsis and process of shiva is so comforting and desirable for mourners, why did they take that away because of YT and not simply postpone till after YT. It's hard to say that after YT the shiva experience w be no longer necessary or needed. I saw someone suggest that "The souls of those who passed away now with abbreviated burials and shivas were so pure they ascended directly to heaven and did not require traditional mourning rituals." That is hard to hear because shiva (and YT cancelling shiva) is a rabbinic creation. Suggestions? Mordechai Cohen macohen613 at gmail.com From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 29 03:10:38 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:10:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why did Chazal cancel shiva bc of Yom tov In-Reply-To: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> References: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: That has reawakened in me the question of why did Chazal cancel shiva because of Yom tov? ====================================== As one who sat shiva at the cemetery on erev Pesach, I tried to keep in mind R'YBS's insight into true simcha as being lfnai hashem (which is what we're supposed to be on shalosh regalim). Seeing it through HKB"H's eyes it's all good (we are human and so don't experience it as such). So: She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, which will allow us all to see more clearly 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 micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:37 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 11:02:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Crazy Snakes and Dogs Message-ID: <20200730150237.GA14405@aishdas.org> We repeatedly discussed RYBS's statement that toothpaste is not ra'ui la'akhilas kelev and therefore doesn't need a hekhsher to be KLP. Not where I intended to go, but I should note that we never discussed the actual core issue -- the limits of the principle of achshevei. Since toothpaste is flavored, one could argue it does apply. RMF (IG OC 2:92), ROY (YD 2:60), the Tzitz Eliezer (10:25), says it does not apply when the flavored item isn't being eaten for the sake of the flavor. Excluding medicine -- and the same argument applies to toothpaste. The CI (OC 116:8) limits achshevei to spoiled chameitz, and not to mixtures containing chameitz. The "only" machmir about applying achshevei to medicines that I know of is the She'agas Aryeh (75). Now, back to the topic I did intent to post about.... So, the story goes (version taken from R Chaim Jachter at https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/cosmetics-and-toiletries-for-pesach-part-three-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter ): A charming anecdote that occurred in Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's Shiur at Yeshiva University in the 1970's (reported by Rav Yosef Adler and many others) is often cited in support of the common practice to be lenient. The Rav stated in Shiur that toothpaste is not Ra'ui Liachilat Kelev (unfit for canine consumption) and thus one is permitted to consume it on Pesach even if it contains Chametz. The next day in Shiur a student raised his hand and explained that he conducted an "experiment" the night before. He related that he placed toothpaste in his dog's feeding bowl to see if his dog would eat it -- and indeed, the dog ate the toothpaste!! Rav Soloveitchik simply responded, "Your dog is crazy." This story illustrates the ruling that we cited last week from Rav Soloveitchik that the standards of edibility are not determined by aberrant behavior. R Pesach Sommer recently found Tosefta Terumos 7:13, which is more famously available on Chullin 49b. It /has/ to be what RYBS was thinking of. The gemara says: Detanya: 5 [liquids] do not have [the prohibition] of gilui: brine, vinegar, oil, honey and fish gravy. Rabbi Shimon says: I saw a snake drink fish brine in Tzidon! They said to him: That [snake] was a shetaya, and one doesn't bring a proof from shotim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From hanktopas at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 20:29:43 2020 From: hanktopas at gmail.com (Henry Topas) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 23:29:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: >> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when >> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed >> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as >> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the >> same Sha'tz conclude what he started? > I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. I called it an office, not the occupent. But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same idea. I have a theory why: I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a *shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post! -Micha Shavua Tov, Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue for Kaddish Shalem? Thank you and Kol Tuv, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 02:36:36 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 12:36:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Henry Topas wrote: > > Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach > of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for > Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or > officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that > reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue > for Kaddish Shalem? What you describe is nothing I've found in the written Poskim. Where I grew up (various Yekkishe Kehiloth) the Ovel was "off the hook" when Hallel was recited. I see this being done in Yeshivishe minyonim, seemingly to "prevent" the Ovel from being Shatz for Hallel. (Also not recorded, AFAIK, except during Shiva.) So, my guess is, that since the Ovel wants to say as many Kadieshim as possible he "gets back the Omud" after Hallel - giving him one more Kaddish. This has no bearing on our discussion, it's a question (and answer) on a recent "Minhag/Hanhogo". Kol Tuv - Danny From emteitz at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 14:06:35 2020 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 17:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: Henry Topas wrote: However one looks at the office of shat"z, there is a difference between chazaras hashat"z and the rest of davening. For everything else, he is essentially a pacer, keeping everyone at the same point in davening, and the leader, in terms of kaddish and borchu. For the amidah, he is definitely a shaliach, whose role it is to be motzi those who cannot themselves daven. It would be possible theoretically not to have a shat"z, having all daven together, and then having one person who, at the appropriate times, would say kaddish and borchu. Chazaras hashat"z, however, must obviously have a shat"z. On days when Hallel is said, it is not a part of chazaras hashat"z; it is, in essence said *during *the chazara, after which the chazara is completed by saying kaddish shalem, which *is* a part of the chazara. (Hallel is in the same category as slichos on fast days, which was originally said during the shat"z's saying the bracha of Slach lanu. Then, too, I believe that someone other than the shat'"z could have led the slichos while the shat"z remained at the amud.) That the aveil should not lead Hallel, but should return for the kaddish because it is a part of the Amidah, is spelled out in the Mishna Brura (581:7). This leads to questioning the practice, when there is more than one aveil, of switching ba'alei tfila at Ashrei-Uva l'Tzion. There are some who object to the practice for that very reason, but apparently it is in the same category as allowing kaddish to be said by more than one person at a time: a concession to darkei shalom in a highly emotional setting. That the aveil not lead Hallel is the opinion of the overwhelming majority. The Mishna Brura loc.cit. brings the apparent opinion of the GR"A who goes even further, that the aveil not lead the entire Shacharis. The MB also cites, in the Biur Halacha in Siman 132, that there are those who bar the aveil from the amud on any day, other than erev Yom Kippur, that Lamnatzeiach is not said -- and does not limit it just to Shacharis on those days. (This is the minhag in my community.) Incidentally, in parts of Europe and in some shuls in EY, there is no shat"z for psukei d'zimra. The amud is unmanned until Yishtabach. If no one need be there, then certainly where there is one, there is no problem in replacing him for Yishtabach. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolberg at yebo.co.za Wed Aug 5 08:00:26 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 17:00:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Censorship in Aruch HaShulchan Message-ID: <014701d66b39$296ebf40$7c4c3dc0$@yebo.co.za> In 39:3, the AH writes: ger (beyamim kadmonim). This was obviously added for the gov censor, similar to Aruch HaShulchan ChM 388:7. Why do we not find the same in MB? Actually, AH OC was written after the same section in MB. Was the political climate in Novardok and Radin so different? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 10 00:52:25 2020 From: eliturkel at mail.gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:52:25 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potato chips and french fries Message-ID: A nice article on the various opinions of bishul akum for french fries and potato chips https://vosizneias.com/2020/08/10/chareidi-potato-chips-versus-regular-chips/ -- Eli Turkel From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 13:42:35 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:42:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Chaim Brisker on his 102nd Yahrzeit Message-ID: <20200811204234.GA9159@aishdas.org> R Elinatan Kupferburg posted this today on Facebook, lekhavod RCB's 102nd yahrzeit (21 Av). Translitarations mine, "q"s and all. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Today is the yahrzeit of [Maran shel kol Benei Yisrael, Rabbeinu Chaim haLevi,] R. Chaim Soloveitchik. It is far beyond this post, or this site, to capture any of the towering significance of Rabbeinu. For that, there's only one thing to do. You have to learn R. Chaim. You sit for hours poring over a sugya without R. Chaim, only to open the sefer and have R. Chaim, with his penetrating, elegant brilliance guide you through the depths of the sea of Talmud. It's as if you were overhearing snippets of a conversation without knowing the topic and then someone revealed it to you and now everything you heard suddenly falls into place. But I do want to make a couple of points about R. Chaim's legacy. Perhaps the most common metonym used to describe or exemplify what is referred to as "the Brisker method," is the cheftza/gavra distinction, often compared to the in rem/in personam legal distinction, though the two are not entirely analogous. It's part of a broader tendency to describe or teach "the Brisker method" by means of a few templatic distinctions: internal/external, intrinsic/accidental, action/result and so on, and has recently been reinforced by books or pamphlets which attempt to do the same. Unfortunately, not only are these gross simplifications and reductions, they entirely obscure what R. Chaim was actually doing, replace it with a different method of study (albeit one that is more prominent in some of his students, notably R. Elchonon Wasserman) and thereby miss his genius. The halakhic discourse, the lomdus, that pervades the Brisk Yeshiva that grew out of the study group around his son R. Velvel (the Brisker Rav) or the other yeshivas it birthed (including BMG), is dissimilar to this perception. 1. The words [cheftza] and [gavra] do not ever appear anywhere in the same piece in [Chiddushei Rabbeinu Chaim haLevi]!! Yes, really. (Except once in [Mekhilah 22:17,] when [gavra] is a quote from the Gemara, i.e. [hahu gavra]). There's a very good reason for that. Because making templatic distinctions is entirely different than what R. Chaim was doing. R. Chaim was elucidating the concepts that underlie and inform halakhic discourse. What is nature of a legal document? What type of obligation is the command is rid chametz? How does a blemish render an animal unfit for sacrifice? Under which mitzva is this prohibition included? R. Chaim's success is defined by precision of conceptual description, which is opposed to templatic rigidity. The only time that [gavra / cheftza] is actually widely used is in Nedarim 2b, in the distinction between vows and oaths, since there the distinction literally is the locus of the prohibition (vows designate an object as forbidden, oaths compel a person to act in a certain way). Often his discussion is not remotely similar to any of the popular "chakiras." For example, the section of the MT that gets the most attention in R. Chaim is the recondite [Hilkhos Tum'as Meis,] in which the pedestrian templates fail. Distinction is a helpful tool in the art of clarity and the halakhic world is composed of human agents and non-human objects, so parts of his discourse may approximate the infamous [gavra / cheftza] but it is by no means central or representative. To be fair, the templatic perception captures certain aspects of some of his chiddushim, and it does communicate the notion of underlying dyadic conceptual distinctions, but I wonder about its ultimate efficacy. 2. The distinctions that approximate [gavra / cheftza] are much older than R. Chaim. Just to give a few examples: - Rivash (Shut 98) extends the gemara's analysis in Nedarim to all prohibitions. - Rid (Eiruvin 48a) uses it describe the prohibition of transporting an object 4 amos in the public domain on Shabbos. - Chasam Sofer (Chullin 115b) uses it to distinguish different types of prohibitions. - Beis Halevi (Shut 3:51 - R. Chaim's father) uses it to explain the nature of the mitzva to eat korbanos. In a broader sense, this type of analysis can be found most acutely in (to give a few examples, moving backwords) Minchas Chinuch, R. Akiva Eiger, the works of R. Aryeh Leib Heller and R. Yaakov Lorberbaum, Peri Megadim, and, most strikingly, by R. Judah Rosanes, whose [Mishneh laMelekh] and [Parashas Derakhim,] two centuries ahead of their time, prefigured much of the Brisker Torah. Of course, the Gemara and Rishonim (Rashi and Meiri come to mind) are not absent of this lomdus either. A recent terminological case from Daf Yomi: take the discussion about perforating an old hole in a wine barrel on Shabbos 146b, where Rashi describes the halakhic crux as whether or not [paqa sheim 'pesach' mineih.] 3. R. Chaim did a lot of things. - He tightened a terminology. - He sharpened the analysis of halakhic concepts. - He displayed a new way of visualizing a sugya and working through it. - He identified the conceptual systematization that forms the substructure of the Mishneh Torah. - He developed a proto-philosophy of halakhic hermeneutics. - He opened the door for gaonim like R. Shimon Shkop to take analysis in a different direction. - By shifting the backdrop from practical halakha to halakha itself, he enabled us to see halakhic concepts not only as useful for determining practice, but as a way through which to view and interact with the world. Each of these deserves a sustained, independent analysis to identify the existing terminologies and approaches that R. Chaim drew on, and the extent of his own innovative prowess. Most powerfully though, he forever changed the halakhic consciousness. Conceptual analysis is now an inexorable part of the talmudic arsenal. Any advanced student of traditional Gemara who sits down to learn has been sensitized to the possibility of a conceptual distinction at play, even if they have no intention of using what they consider "the Brisker method." For some, R. Chaim's thought is so overwhelming that one can never look at Gemara differently again. But I might venture to say that its power lies in the recognition that even if someone does not walk down the path R. Chaim cleared, then that is precisely what they are doing: not learning like R. Chaim. R. Chaim fundamentally defined the contours of halakhic thought, and we are all in his debt. [Ki gadol sheim avinu beYisrael, ve'or Toraso male'ah teiveil -- misof ha'olam ad sofo mamash, umi zeh milomedei Sorah bedoreinu asher lo zarach alav or shimsho venogah Soraso.] From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Aug 11 14:37:14 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:37:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin Message-ID: If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? 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 zev at sero.name Wed Aug 12 08:07:36 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:07:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/8/20 5:37 pm, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another?s birchat hanehenin > and then did not eat, is it a bracha l?vatala for him? I don't see how it can be. The bracha had effect for the person who said it, so it was not wasted. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:23:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:23:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200812202354.GA10738@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 09:37:14PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin > and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? Berakhah levatalah sounds like a description of the "cheftza" of the berakhah. Not gavra-specific. And what would be levatalah, the mevoreikh's kavvanah to be motzi him? Safeiq berakhos lehaqeil is sometimes explained as safeiq deOraisa lechumerah where the deOraisa is sheim Hashem lashav. Along those lines, one could theorize that as long as the sheim wasn't said lashav, it's not a berakhah levatalah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals http://www.aishdas.org/asp is not as important as Author: Widen Your Tent what you become by achieving your goals. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Henry David Thoreau From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Sun Aug 16 08:51:59 2020 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 11:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Business with an Akum Message-ID: One is not permitted to do any kind of business with an Akum (idol-worshipper) on the day of their festival (nor 3 days prior in the Land of Israel) - Rambam Hil. Avodah Zara Ch. 9, Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 148.1. Question - Today, if I know a shop owner is a religious Xian, am I allowed to shop there on Sunday? Or if I know he is a religious Hindu, do I need to mark my calendar with all of the Hindu festivals and avoid his shop on those days? What about a traditional Chinese person on Chinese New Year? Or a Catholic on All Souls Day? If so, is there any halachic literature that lists all of the dates currently forbidden? (I?m also not allowed to sell to him on his holidays, and if I do (in error), I?m not allowed to enjoy the profits of that sale.) Alexander Seinfeld From joelirarich at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 03:47:26 2020 From: joelirarich at gmail.com (Joel Rich) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 06:47:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat hamazon Message-ID: <8FD081BF-3F42-460C-BE16-588F69071B09@gmail.com> A group of people are having Shabbos meal together in the dining room. They all get up to clear the main course dishes and bring them into the kitchen. The dessert flatware and glasses remain on the table Must they say birchat hamazon immediately upon return to the table? Kt Joel rich From micha at aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 09:00:38 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 12:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re'eih vs Shema Message-ID: <20200816160038.GA25978@aishdas.org> Because we say the words from Va'eschanan multiple times a day, I have heard (pun intended, sadly) a lot about shema when it means something more than the stimulation of neurons in my inner ear. Like the English word "listen", "shema" connotes paying attention, obeying ("eiqev asher shamata beQoli"), etc... So, what do we get from the use of "re'eih", as in the title of this week's parashah? In the past couple of days, I cam up with a theory about the difference between shemi'ah and re'iyah, but want to vet it with the chevrah. Shema introduces a theological fact we can only accept in the abstract. We don't even fully understand how One, Indivisible and Unique Hashem is. We are told to accept ol malkhus Shamayim on this basis, but the fact itself is one we can apprehend, not experience. Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite different than an abstract truth. (This seems to be consistent with "ein domeh shemi'ah lere'iyah". "Re'iyah" is something I can know first-hand.) Ta chazi in the bavli seems to also fit this pattern: Berakhos 58a: Rav Sheishes says to a min, "ta chazi" that I am brighter than you, proceding to show he figured out when the king would come. But then, the point was made at the beginning ot the story that R Sheishes was blind, so ht emay have been using the phrase pointed. Eiruvin 6b: ta chazi that the gates of Neharda'ah couldn't be locked. (And thus Shemu'el doesn't require they be locked in order to permit carrying.) Etc... All cases of "go and check for yourself". Nothing at all like "ta shema", which introduces learning a teaching. And of course "puq chazi". But in the Yerushalmi and the Zohar, "ta chazi" is used the way "ta shema" is in Bavel. So, maybe I am just reading too much into Bavli idiom. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a http://www.aishdas.org/asp person is to remain asleep and untamed." Author: Widen Your Tent - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From kbloom at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 14:30:40 2020 From: kbloom at gmail.com (Ken Bloom) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:30:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? Message-ID: Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Aug 17 15:37:49 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 22:37:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Dialectics? Message-ID: An important caveat (IMHO) from R' A Lebowitz to a number of shiurim from diverse speakers: Me-....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y, and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y? R' AL-I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just a helpful way to contextualize the issues I'm still thinking there's another paradigm shift coming, interested in hearing from others. 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 doniels at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 04:55:45 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:55:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > From: "Rich, Joel" > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3 (excuse the Hebrew for the ????? crowd) - translation from Sefaria (after removing a Chumra not in the original): ????? ????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ?????????, ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ?????????????, ???? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???????. "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi shebeirach [a blessing for those who fast on these days] and you intended to fast, this is sufficient, and no other form of acceptance is needed. " ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query. Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of getting the best of both worlds. Kol Tuv - Danny From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Aug 18 05:43:47 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:43:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query. Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of getting the best of both worlds. ============================================== When I learned this with my chavruta a few months back my comment was - I'd love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - machshava balma (random thought?) which has no halachic significance, amira (specific oral articulation) which is completely binding and amen/specific machshava(really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat indeterminate (not welcome in a brisker world?) 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 doniels at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 05:03:54 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:03:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Re'eih vs Shema In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMB reminded me of a vort I heard and said over at this week's Shabbos table. The opening word of the Sedra - Re'eih - is seemingly superfluous. "I present you today with [the ability to choose between] blessing or curse". What does "Look! I present you...." add? The answer was exactly as RMB proposed: > Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the > world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite > different than an abstract truth. We need to look around and see how choice and its consequences are built into the creation. Kol Tuv - Danny From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Aug 18 05:54:11 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 08:54:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. looking for sources and current custom Message-ID: <015401d6755e$aba2ff10$02e8fd30$@touchlogic.com> #! ... May a women uncover her hair in private? Halachah addresses public, semipublic, and private settings: Public: The Torah states that a woman must completely cover her hair in a public place. Some opinions state that under a tefach (a handbreadth, about three inches total) of hair may show. Semipublic: In a semipublic place, one opinion states that even if men are not usually found there, a married woman must cover her hair. When a woman covers her hair, this brings much blessing into the home Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory...." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required." Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? #2 https://www.yoatzot.org/questions-and-answers/1910/ Question: Does a woman have to cover her hair in front of her brothers? Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the presence of your father, husband and son. Where it is customary and not considered offensive, a woman may uncover her hair in front of her brother in the privacy of her own home. Is this leniency known/relied upon? Is this what people are doing out there today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 17:51:37 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:51:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200819005137.GB6547@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 02:55:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote: > I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3... > "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday > following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi > shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient... > "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you > may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." > This last line is -- in my mind -- parallel to your query. > Seems that answering Amen -- even with intention -- is one way of > getting the best of both worlds. I think the best of both worlds may only because you said amein to blessing the fasters, and not "me too" to someone's pledge to fast. There is mental acceptance during a related verbal act. Not a verbal acceptance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but the lighting of a fire. Author: Widen Your Tent - W.B. Yeats - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 17:48:02 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:48:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Dialectics? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200819004802.GA6547@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:37:49PM +0000, Joel Rich wrote: > Me- >> ....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I >> just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y, >> and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean >> choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y? > R' AL[ebowitz]- >> I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just >> a helpful way to contextualize the issues When discussing Brisker vs Telzher derakhim, everyone focuses on "Vus?" vs "Fahr vus?" (What? vs Why?) But another major different is R' Shimon's heavy use of the concept of hitztarfus -- the idea that a halakhah can be caused by the convergence of multiple factors. >From Widen Your Tent (by me), sec. 6.3: But there is a second distinction: Rav Chaim would explain an apparent contradiction by finding "the chiluk," the distinction between two cases that we initially thought ought to be the same, or the distinction between the viewpoints in two sides of a dispute. Rav Chaim's is a reductionist approach to analyzing a topic; it teaches how to understand something by identifying and understanding each of its parts. This methodology is suited for identifying "the cause" of a law. Rav Shimon also invokes hitztarfus, fusion or connectedness. It allows us to better ask, once we know the parts, how do they combine and interact to produce the given result? From this vantage point, rather than looking for a single cause, we can see that a given ruling can come from the way in which many halachic causes combine. Suppose we were tasked to do analysis to find out why some accident happened. For example: Why did David hurt his foot? Because a paint can fell on it. Why did the can fall? Because someone else accidentally knocked it off its shelf. Why did he knock it off the shelf? Because his nose itched, and he lifted his hand to scratch it, and also because the shelf wasn't on its brackets correctly and wobbled a bit. However, it's equally true that he hurt his foot because even though he usually wears iron-toed hiking boots, he chose not to wear them that that day. And why did he not wear his boots? Because when he was looking for something to put on his feet, someone else had turned on the light in another room, which changed his train of thought. And so on. Every event has many causes, each of which in turn has its own many causes. Rarely does an event only have one cause. We get used to identifying "the cause" of something. I would instead suggest that every event is like "the perfect storm"; each one has combinations of factors that come to a head at the same point. Similarly, Rav Shimon saw no reason to assume that it takes one cause to create an obligation or prohibition, rather than a combination of them. Which I then relate to R Shimon's approach to chessed as a widening of one's "ani" to include others. (The way we naturally have little problem giving to our children, because in a sense, they're "us".) I also use the difference between the focus on reductionism vs interconnectedness to explain a structural difference between Aristo's books and the Mishnah. WHich may be more relevant to the point: This difference between Semitic and Yefetic perspectives can be seen by contrasting the style of Aristotle with that of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Aristotle catalogues. He divides a subject into subtopics, and those subtopics even further, until one is down to the individual fact. Greek thought was focused on reductionism. To understand a phenomenon, break it down into smaller pieces and try to understand each piece. This is typical of the Yefetic perspective. That reductionism stands in contrast to the way Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi redacted the first Mishnah. The beginning of all of Mishnah could have said outright that Rabbi Eliezer ruled that the time for saying the evening Shema is from sunset and for the first third of the night. This is the way United States legal codes are arranged divided and subdivided into law, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, clauses, and items, with an effort to minimize cross-references. Instead the first Mishnah makes its point by invoking the priesthood, purity, and the night shifts in the Temple, "from the time Kohanim [who went to the mikvah to be purified during the prior day] may enter to eat their terumah until the end of the first shift." It describes the start and end times for the mitzvah using referents that one wouldn't normally assume when starting study. This is not to confuse the issue or needlessly close study from non-initiates, but because the key to understanding one mitzvah necessarily includes its connections to everything else. The proper time to say Shema cannot be understood without that context. The task Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi set out to accomplish with the Mishnah was not to explain the rationales of the halachah, and therefore the Mishnah spells out this holistic understanding. We are left not knowing why the rules of when Kohanim who needed the mikvah may eat terumah or the time the first shift in the Beis Hamikdash ended add meaning to the time span in which the nighttime Shema may be said. But the Mishnah does record the law in memorizable form, and apparently that includes helping us remember the halachah by association to the other halachos it relates to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur http://www.aishdas.org/asp with the proper intent than to fast on Yom Author: Widen Your Tent Kippur with that intent. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 12:42:04 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Limits of Parshanut Message-ID: <20200820194204.GA9194@aishdas.org> Parshanut doesn't have rules of pesaq. Nothing ever ends an opinion (lifsoq) once it is derived. So, those 98 ways become 9,604 ways, and then 941,192 ways as each interpretation gets its 98 interpretations. And then we have cases where those who pursue peshat -- Rashbam, IE, most famously -- give a peshat in the pasuq which they acknowledge runs against Chazal. But they feel Chazal weren't working bederekh peshat. (And the Rashbam is clear that he doesn't believe Chazal were wrong, or that anything he says about the pasuq has halachic signicance. E.g. see his comments on "vayhi erev, vayhi boqer".) But, procedurally, there still has to be rules for what kind of interpretation is valid and what aren't. I cannot believe that people can just make stuff up, and if fits a linguistic oddity of the text or a wording in some source of Chazal it's necessarily Torah. I don't know what the limits are. All I know is the limits of my own comfort zone. *To me*, "toras Hashem temimah" means that if I have a theory of how to understand something aggadic -- theology, mussar or parshanut -- it must be driven by material internal to the existing body Torah. If I am forced to an an entirely new understanding that no one proposed before to answer a scientific question, I would prefer leaving the question tabled, teiqu, than to run with this kind of innovation. To me, following a tendency I heard around YU from R YB Soloveitchik's students (my own rebbe, R Dovid, was yet more conservative), this is related to the difference between chiddush and shinui. "There is no beis medrash without chiddush" because learning Torah means extrapolating new points from the existing data. Extrapolation from and interpolation between existing Torah "data points" is chiddush. Shinui is innovation driven by something other than Torah. I am not sure if RYBS would say that in the context of parshanut in particular or not. As I said, as this point we're only discussing the not-that-relevant topic of "Micha's comfort zone". Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... http://www.aishdas.org/asp ... but you're the pilot. Author: Widen Your Tent - R' Zelig Pliskin - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 13:27:15 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:27:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vaccine Trials in Halakhah Message-ID: <20200820202715.GA32236@aishdas.org> Given the need for CoVID-19 vaccine challenge trials, I heard a number of podcasts on the topics of testing or volunteering to be a test subject for an experimental cure. But, it's hard to get people who are reading an email digest to take time for an audio. So, here's a link to something in text. https://thelehrhaus.com/timely-thoughts/signing-up-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-trial Here's the halachic section of the paper, minus all set-up and general ethics discussion. Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; http://www.aishdas.org/asp Experience comes from bad decisions. Author: Widen Your Tent - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF The Lehrhaus Signing Up for a COVID-19 Vaccine Trial By Sharon Galper Grossman and Shamai Grossman August 18, 2020 ... Undergoing Dangerous Medical Procedures in Halakhah Halakhah's approach to dangerous medical procedures begins with Avodah Zara 27b, which permits a hayei sha'ah - a sick individual with a limited time to live - to seek the care of a pagan doctor, because while we worry that a Jew-hating doctor might kill the Jewish patient, he might also effect a long-term cure. However, if the sick individual is unlikely to die, he may not turn to the pagan. The Gemara's explanation as to why we permit the hayei sha'ah to risk his brief remaining time alive is, "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" - we are not concerned about a risk to a short life because the pagan doctor might cure him. The Gemara derives this principle from the dilemma of the four lepers in II Kings 7:3-8. Banished from their city, which was struck by famine, they faced starvation. They saw a camp of Arameans possessing food, and were confronted by the following dilemma. If they were to enter the camp, the Arameans might kill them, yet they might feed them. Preferring possible immediate death from capture to certain subsequent death from starvation, the lepers entered the camp. There they discovered an abundance of food and survived. Tosafot (s.v. le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan) questions the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan." Doesn't Yoma 65a's permission to move stones on Shabbat to search for a hayei sha'ah buried underneath the rubble imply that we value even the briefest survival? Tosafot answers that in both cases we act in the best interest of the patient, rejecting certain death for an uncertainty that might prolong life. Thus, in Avodah Zarah, we disregard hayei sha'ah because otherwise the patient will surely die. In Yoma, we desecrate Shabbat for the hayei sha'ah because if we do not remove the stones, he will also certainly die. Based on Avodah Zara 27b and the story of the lepers, Shulhan Arukh Yoreh De'ah 155:1 codifies the principal "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan," permitting a hayei sha'ah to incur the risk of death at the hands of a pagan doctor in the hope of a long-term cure. Numerous modern poskim[7] rule that a hayei sha'ah may undergo a risky medical procedure if it offers the chance of a long-term cure. Shevut Ya'akov 3:75 explains, "Since the patient will certainly die, we push off the certainty of death and opt for the possibility of cure." One source, however, seems to prohibit the hayei sha'ah from undergoing dangerous medical treatment. Sefer Hasidim 467 describes a special herb remedy with the potential to kill or cure within days of use, accusing the women who prepared it of shortening the lives of their patients. One might interpret his denunciation as a rejection of the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan." Orhot Hayyim, Orah Hayyim 328:10 dismisses this interpretation, explaining that Sefer Hasidim only prohibits the risky remedy because there is an alternative safe treatment. He argues that in the absence of an effective alternative even Sefer Hasidim would accept the risk. Applied to our case ,the absence of an effective cure for COVID-19 might justify engaging in a risky process to find a cure. Does the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" permit healthy volunteers like Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial that injects half of the participants with a vaccine of uncertain benefit, exposing them to a lethal virus? To answer this question, we must determine if hayei sha'ah applies to healthy volunteers who do not face the risk of immediate death, the level of medical risk one may incur to achieve hayei olam (long-term cure), and the level of benefit required to justify the assumption of such risk. In addition, we must establish whether the volunteers may endanger themselves, in the absence of any personal gain, purely for the benefit of others, and whether this principle applies to experimental therapies where the benefit of treatment is unclear. Finally, if Halakhah permits participation, is one obligated to volunteer? Defining Hayei Sha'ah The discussion permitting dangerous medical treatment assumed that the individual had the status of hayei sha'ah - a terminal illness with a limited time to live. Can we interpret hayei sha'ah more broadly, and can we apply this understanding to human vaccine challenge trials involving healthy volunteers? Rishonim and early Aharonim do not define hayei sha'ah precisely. Their interpretation of the term ranges from a life expectancy as short as one to two days to longer than a year (see Table 1). Though these poskim debate the exact duration of life required to satisfy the halakhic definition of hayei sha'ah, they view a hayei sha'ah as an individual with an illness that compromises his life expectancy. At first glance, these poskim would not classify Sam, a healthy young volunteer, as a hayei sha'ah. However, Tiferet Yisrael Yoma, Yakhin 8:3, expands the definition, permitting a healthy individual to undergo smallpox vaccination, which causes death in one in 1,000 individuals, to attain long-term immunity. He dismisses the small risk of immediate death from vaccination so as to prevent future lethal infections and broadens the definition of hayei sha'ah to include situations where the cause of death is not present, but is only a statistical possibility. He bases this ruling on Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which, citing the Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, obligates a person to place himself in a possible danger to save his friend from a certain danger. So for example, if someone sees his friend drowning in the sea, he must jump in to save him though he risks drowning during his attempted rescue. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if a bystander is obligated to incur possible risk to rescue his drowning friend from a possible danger, a healthy individual may accept possible immediate peril to save himself from a possible future danger. Rabbi J.D. Bleich applies Tiferet Yisrael's definition of hayei sha'ah to healthy carriers of the BRCA mutation who act to reduce their high risk of cancer by opting for prophylactic surgery.[8] Though the cancer has not yet developed, they may incur the immediate risk of surgery to increase their life expectancy.[9] Even if we consider a genetic predisposition or a statistical probability a present danger, it is unlikely that unafflicted carriers of such a mutation will die within twelve months. By permitting a healthy individual to assume a one in 1,000 risk of immediate death to prevent a future lethal smallpox infection, Tiferet Yisrael suggests that Halakhah recognizes the importance of disease prevention, equating it with treatments for active life-threatening disease. His halakhic analysis and assessment might permit a healthy volunteer such as Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial to achieve immunity from COVID-19. However, such a trial involves substantial risk without proven benefits. In addition, because Tiferet Yisrael bases his position on the Yerushalmi which obligates an individual to endanger himself to save someone who faces certain danger, Tiferet Yisrael might even allow Sam to participate in the absence of any personal benefit, for pure altruism to save humanity. Defining a Permissible Level of Risk Aharonim debate the exact level of risk the hayei sha'ah may incur. Ahiezer 2:16:6 cites Mishnat Hakhamim to permit a dangerous treatment for a safek shakul - a risk of death less than or equal to 50%. If the risk of death exceeds 50%, the hayei sha'ah may not receive the treatment. This is also the opinion of Tzitz Elieze r 10:25:5:5. If the majority of physicians endorse treatment, Ahiezer permits a risk greater than 50% and does not define the upper limit of permitted risk. Because any COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial would receive the prior approval of an overseeing body of physicians, Ahiezer might permit participation for a risk higher than 50%. Beit David Yoreh De'ah II:340 permits a hayei sha'ah to receive a treatment that causes death in 999 out of 1,000 patients. In 1961, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58, permitted a treatment in which the odds were more than 50% that it would cause death. However, in 1972 (Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 3:36), he modified his position, permitting only a safek shakul. He concludes that a hayei sha'ah who seeks medical treatment with a greater than 50% risk of death may rely on the more lenient position of Ahiezer and receive the dangerous therapy. How does Sam's participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial compare to the risks that these poskim cite? They address situations where the person is terminally ill and faces imminent death, but do not define the level of risk a healthy individual may incur. However, Tiferet Yisrael permits a healthy individual to undergo vaccination against smallpox with a risk of death of one in 1,000. For all adults age 20-29 infected with COVID-19, including those with comorbidities, virologists estimate a 1.1% risk of complications requiring hospitalization and 0.03% risk of death,[10] an approximation that might either overestimate or underestimate Sam's true risk. Sam, who suffers no comorbidities, might be at the low end of the participation risk. Furthermore, because Sam lives in an area with a large number of COVID-19 cases, he is already at high risk of infection; participation only minimally increases this. Should he become infected, he will receive state-of-the-art care, which might reduce his complications. In addition, if researchers identify an effective treatment, that treatment would further diminish his participation risk. With appropriate risk minimization (e.g., careful titration of viral dose, early diagnosis, and optimal medical care), Sam might face little, if any, additional risk related to experimental infection. Alternatively, Sam's risk of death might be higher than estimated because the vaccine or the strain of virus injected might increase the severity of infection or the incidence of lasting harm. In addition, because the virus is so new and follow-up of those infected limited, the long-term risks of COVID-19 infection are unknown and might be greater than anticipated. Even if Sam's risk from participating is higher than estimated, his danger of death is still well below the 50% threshold that the above poskim use and the 0.1% risk that Tifferet Yisrael permits for healthy individuals undergoing smallpox vaccination. Definition of Hayei Olam - What Benefits Justify Risk? The above discussion, which explored a hayei sha'ah's acceptable level of risk with regard to medical treatments, assumed that the goal of treatment is to achieve hayei olam, a long-term cure. Poskim disagree about whether one may undergo a dangerous therapy for any other purpose, such as prolonging life in the absence of a complete recovery or the relief of pain and symptoms. Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58 and 3:36 prohibits risky treatment that merely prolongs life in the absence of complete recovery. Rav Bleich offers a different perspective.[11] Quoting Ramban's Torat ha-Adam,[12] which derives from the phrase, "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" the principle that "we are not concerned with possible [loss of] hayei sha'ah in the face of more life (hayei tuva)," Rav Bleich interprets "hayei tuva" to mean more life, and concludes that Ramban would permit dangerous medical treatment to achieve a longer period of hayei sha'ah, even in the absence of a cure. Iggerot Moshe Yore De'ah II:36 prohibits dangerous treatment for pain relief alone. Rav Yaakov Emden, Mor u-Kezi'ah 328, writes that surgery for pain relief is not "hutar le-gamrei," categorically permitted, suggesting that under specific circumstances it might be allowed. Tzitz Eliezer 13:87 permits morphine for a dying patient, although morphine might hasten his death, because nothing torments man more than intractable pain. Thus, Tzitz Eliezer would argue, a hayei sha'ah may undergo dangerous treatment not just to achieve hayei olam but also to achieve hayei tuva, longer life or pain relief. What is the benefit to Sam of participating in the human vaccine challenge trial? Will participation give him hayei olam, hayei tuva, or some other non-life prolonging benefit? First, vaccination itself or infection with or without vaccination might yield hayei olam -- a long-term cure and permanent immunity to COVID-19, akin to Tiferet Yisrael's smallpox vaccine. However, it is possible that the vaccine or infection will only provide temporary immunity. Here, participation will not achieve hayei olam, but only hayei tuva, but revaccination to boost his immunity could yield hayei olam. Second, because Sam lives in a high-infection zone, he faces a real risk of becoming infected even if he does not participate. Participation guarantees Sam priority in the allocation of medical resources and the best medical care should he become infected. By participating, Sam decreases his risk of complications and death from infection. Better care could improve his medical outcome and increase his chances of surviving COVID-19, thus facilitating hayei olam. Furthermore, if he develops immunity, he can no longer infect his family. The possibility of achieving long-term or short-term immunity to COVID-19, better treatment if infected, and relieving anxiety over infecting others are direct benefits to Sam for participating in the trial. However, it is possible that participation will provide no benefit, direct or indirect, to Sam. Sam's ultimate motivation for participation, like that of the thousands of volunteers who have come forward to participate in these trials, is altruism, helping to discover an effective vaccine that will save millions of lives. May one undergo a dangerous treatment in order to save others? Incurring Risk to Save Others Citing Talmud Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426 obligates one to place himself in a possible danger to save the life of someone facing certain danger. In Shulhan Arukh, Rav Yosef Karo and Rama omit this requirement. Sema Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 explains that Shulhan Arukh and Rama follow Rambam, Rif, Rosh, and Tur, who also omit this obligation. Pithei Teshuvah Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 suggests that they omitted this obligation because it contradicts Talmud Bavli (Niddah 61a and Sanhedrin 73a) and Jewish law typically follows Talmud Bavli. Radbaz 3:627 (53) was asked if a foreign government demands that a Jew undergo removal of a limb, a procedure presumed not to endanger his life, to save the life of another Jew, may one do so. He answers that one who consents acts with midat hasidut, a degree of piety, but if amputation will endanger his life, he is a hasid shoteh, acting illogically by violating the commandment va-hai bahem (which Sanhedrin 74a understands to mean that mitzvot are to live by and not die by). Similarly, in in Radbaz 5 Lilshonot ha-Rambam 1:582 (218), he addresses whether one is obligated to save the life of a fellow Jew, he explains that if the rescuer faces a safek mukhra - a certain danger - he has no obligation to act. But if the odds are greater that he will save his friend without endangering himself, failure to rescue transgresses lo ta'amod al dam rei'ekha. Tiferet Yisrael bases his teshuvah permitting a healthy volunteer to undergo smallpox vaccination on Talmud Yerushalmi and Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which obligate a person to place himself in danger to save a drowning friend. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if one may endanger himself to rescue his friend from danger, he may certainly assume risk of vaccination to save himself and achieve long-term immunity. In fact, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:174:4 permits one to accept a possible danger if it will save someone else from a definite danger. Tzitz Eliezer 13:101 rules that one may participate in experimental therapy and donate blood to benefit others if physicians determine that participation is risk-free. We consider such participation a mitzvah. In this situation, however, physicians cannot determine the risk of Sam's participating in the human vaccine trial and cannot claim that the trial is without risk. In Yehaveh Da'at 3:84, Rav Ovadia Yosef prohibits treatment with a risk greater than 50% based on Radbaz's classification of a rescuer who endangers himself for a safek shakul as a hasid shoteh. Rav Ovadia Yosef states that the majority of Aharonim, including Eliyah Rabba 328:8, Netziv ha-Emek She'eilah Re'eh 147:4, Aruh Ha-shulkhan 426, Mishpat Kohen 143-2, Heikhal Yitzhak Orah Hayyim 3, and Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 1:145, support this position. However, he permits kidney donation and even considers it a mitzvah, because the risk to the donor is low; according to the physicians with whom he consulted, 99% of donors recover fully from the operation. Interestingly, like Rav Ovadia Yosef, ethicists point to kidney donation as a model for determining the level of risk one may accept to benefit others[13,14] and consider the risk of death from participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial equivalent to the risk of death from kidney donation.[15] Because the risk of death from participating in this trial is significantly less than 50% and is comparable to the risk of kidney donation, Halakhah would seem to permit Sam's altruistic enrollment to save others from certain death from the virus. In fact, Sam's participation, which has the potential to save not just one life, like a kidney donor, but millions, is not only permitted but meritorious. One might even argue that Sam is obligated to participate based on lo ta'amod al dam rei'ekha. Rav Asher Weiss in Minhat Asher 3:122 cites Ta'anit 18b as proof that an individual may endanger himself to save the community, and in doing so performs a great mitzvah. According to Rashi, Turyanus, a Roman official, accused the Jews of murdering the emperor's daughter. He threatened mass execution unless the guilty party confessed. To save the community, Lilianus and Pappus, falsely do so. Turyanos executes them and spares the community. Rav Weiss concludes that an individual who gives his life to save the community has a direct path to the Garden of Eden. He states that when a nation is at war, there are unique rules of pikuah nefesh, the obligation to save a life. To win, the nation requires the self-sacrifice of not only its soldiers, but all those who fill essential, life-saving roles, such as police officers, fire fighters, security guards, and physicians. In the midst of a pandemic that has infected 13,000,000 and led to the death of 500,000 worldwide, one may reasonably conclude that we are at war with COVID-19, and that Sam and the other volunteers for a human vaccine challenge trial are voluntary conscripts. Though Halakhah permits one to undergo risky treatment to achieve a long-term cure, poskim, including Tiferet Yisrael Yoma 8:3, do not obligate participation. If the chance that the treatment will succeed is greater than 50%, Iggerot Moshe in Yore De'ah 3:36 and Choshen Mishpat 2:74:5 Rav Bleich explains that assuming risk for a long-term cure is permitted but not obligatory, because we trust a person to do what is reasonable to safeguard his body from danger. For those who are risk averse, undertaking a dangerous treatment or participating in a human vaccine trial would be unreasonable, while for the less conservative, such as Sam, the risk is acceptable. Experimental Therapy in Halakhah The discussion about dangerous medical treatment applies to therapies with known medical benefits. How does Halakhah approach risks incurred for experimental therapy with no proven benefit? Ttitz Eliezer 13:101 limits participation in experimental treatment to trials that are risk-free. Rav Moshe Dov Welner in ha-Torah ve-haMedinah, VII-VIII (5716-5717), 314, prohibits participation in clinical trials that lack scientific basis. He addresses a situation where the physician has no idea how to treat a disease and decides to experiment on a dying patient because the patient will die anyway. He calls such a physician a terrorist. The scientific reality surrounding human vaccine trials is vastly different than this extreme example. While the exact benefits of participation - such as whether the vaccine confers immunity and whether it will eradicate COVID-19 - are unknown, these trials employ vaccines that have already shown promise in preliminary trials and undergone extensive review by governmental and international agencies that have approved their scientific merit as potential vaccines. Such trials would not qualify as acts of desperation, implemented because the patient is dying anyway. Minhat Shlomo 2:82:12 permits participation in medical research, classifying the battle against disease as a milhemet mitzvah, a necessary war. Today we do not have a king or beit din to declare a milhemet mitzvah against disease and obligate the healthy to take dangerous medicines to help find a cure. He writes that because recognized experts, our contemporary equivalent of a beit din or king, take great care to execute these studies, one may participate. He explains that participation qualifies as holeh lefanenu, the presence of an actual sick person before us, which is considered a fundamental halakhic requirement for defining a situation as pikuah nefesh. In Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De'ah 280, Rav Yehezkel Landau prohibited autopsies because they are for the benefit of future patients, not those who appear before us now, and thus fail to meet a strict definition of holeh lefanenu.[16] Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explains that those autopsies were performed exclusively to increase the physician's knowledge, so are not comparable to experimental therapy. Rav Auerbach believes that contemporary medical research qualifies as holeh lefanenu because those sick with these diseases are before us, and the treatments to be tested are before us. He considers participation in clinical trials safek hatzalat nefashot - possibly life-saving - and not merely an academic exercise to increase scientific knowledge. Human Vaccine Challenge Trials Recently, Rav Asher Weiss[17] directly addressed the permissibility of participating in such trials. Reiterating his position in Minhat Asher 3:101 that one may endanger oneself to perform an essential communal role such as serving as a police officer, rescue worker, or even judge who risks death threats, he permits young, healthy individuals to participate in COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trials in controlled environments because the risk of complications or death is low, especially for those who are young and lack comorbidities, and the trial can potentially save thousands of lives. He notes the concerns of Noda be-Yehuda[18] and Hatam Sofer,[19] who prohibited autopsies because such procedures failed to satisfy their halakhic definition of holeh lefanenu. Rav Weiss explains that even if we do not define participation as pikuah nefesh, overriding biblical and rabbinic prohibitions, it is a mitzvah since it will save millions of lives. This social good permits Sam to assume the small risk of participation. Furthermore, one cannot extrapolate from the autopsies of the Noda be-Yehuda to contemporary scientific reality. It is highly unlikely that autopsies performed two hundred years ago affected medical care. He writes, "verifying the efficacy of a vaccine would not be categorized as a benefit in the distant future, but rather as a great mitzvah that is, in fact, halakhically considered to be possibly life-saving." He rejects Rav Auerbach's classification of medical research as milhemet mitzvah because this designation obligates participation in medical research, and Rav Weiss believes that participation is not obligatory. Only wars fought against enemy armies qualify as milhamot mitzvah, not public dangers such as wild animals and diseases, to which only the laws of pikuach nefesh apply. Conclusion The halakhic decisions cited above, including perhaps even Radbaz, would seem to permit Sam's participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial, because a healthy individual may incur a small risk of death, comparable to the risk permitted for other acts of altruism such as kidney donation to achieve long-term immunity. In addition, the potential benefit to society is immeasurable, preventing the death and suffering of millions by halting the spread of this pandemic and ending the physical, psychological, and economic devastation of prolonged social distancing. Table 1 ... [Okay, I couldn't pass the summary table of who defines chayei sha'ah as how long to the digest. So, go check the URL for yourself! Skipping to the foonotes. -micha] ... [7] Shvut Yaakov 3:75, Pithei Teshuvah Yoreh De'ah 339:1, Gilyon Maharsha Yoreh De'ah 155:1, Binat Adam 73, 93, Binyan Tziyyon 111, Tiferet Yisrael Boaz, Yoma 8:3, Ahiezer 2:16:6, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58 and 3:36, and Tzitz Eliezer 4:13, all permit a hayei sha'ah to undergo risky medical treatment for cure. [8] Bleich, J.D., "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures," Tradition, 37, no.3 (2003): 76-100, [241]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23262430 . [9] Bleich, J.D. "Genetic Screening: Survey of Recent Halachic Periodical Literature," Tradition, 34, no.1 (2000): 63-87, [243]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23261641?seq=1 . [10] Verity, R. et al, "Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis," Lancet Infect. Dis. March 30, 2020, [245]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20 )30243-7/fulltext . [11] Bleich, J.D., "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures," Tradition, 37, no. 3 (2003): 94. [12] Kol Kitvei ha-Ramban, II, 38. [13] Miller, G., Joffe, S., "Limits to Research Risks," J. Med. Ethics 35, 445 (2009). [14] Resnik, D., "Limits on Risks for Healthy Volunteers in Biomedical Research," Theor. Med. Bioeth. 33, no. 2 (April, 2012): 137. [15] Verity, R. et al, "Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis," Lancet Infect. Dis. March 30, 2020, [251]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20 )30243-7/fulltext. [16] For a more detailed discussion of the definition of holeh lefanenu in Covid-19, see our earlier Lehrhaus essay, [253]https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/sharpening-the-definition-of-h oleh-lefanenu-the-diamond-princess-and-the-limits-of-quarantine/. [17] Rav Asher Weiss, "Experimental Treatments for Coronavirus," Mosaica Press (2020): 5-7. [18] Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De'ah, 210. [19] Hatam Sofer Yoreh De'ah, 336. From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Aug 20 14:43:28 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:43:28 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. Message-ID: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> << Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory...." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required." Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? >> See Igeros Moshe Even HaEzer Chelek 1 siman 48 and also (and particularly) Igeros Moshe Orech Chaim chelek 5 siman 37:12: ????? ???? ???? ????, ???? ?????. ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????. ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????. ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? (???? ?"? ?"?), ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????. ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????. The covering of the head before her husband is not necessary. Since the prohibition of uncovering the head is only in the marketplace. And even at the time of her period, there is no prohibition in her house before her husband and children. And there is a hidur to do like Kimchit (Yoma 47a) but we have not heard that there are any modest like this and even in the earlier generations. And in the time of the Tanaim the married women were not accustomed so except for individuals like Kimchit. Note specifically *but we have not heard that there are any modest like this, and even in the earlier generations*. A reasonably translation of this is surely: neither Rav Moshe's wife, nor his mother did this. <> I think it depends on your community. In a modern orthodox community in which most women are not covering their hair when they go out in a public place either, I suspect many if not most of the few women who do cover their hair when they go out absolutely rely on this position, and sometimes more lenient ones inside their homes (ie only cover their hair when they go out, as per the pshat of the mishna & gemora in Ketubos as referred to by Rav Moshe, and not when in their home regardless of who is there). In the Satmar community where they shave their heads, no, I am pretty sure no women are relying on this leniency. Within the communities on the spectrum between these two poles, I suspect it varies, getting more likely as you move towards the more "modern" end and less likely as you move towards the more charedi and certainly Chassidic end. But Rav Moshe never having heard of it in his and in previous generations is a notable data point. Regards Chana From mcohen at touchlogic.com Thu Aug 20 17:04:40 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:04:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. In-Reply-To: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> Thank you for your comments RCL wrote... Note specifically *but we have not heard that there are any modest like this, and even in the earlier generations*. A reasonably translation of this is surely: neither Rav Moshe's wife, nor his mother did this. True; although I would like to hear what the Feinstein children testify about their mothers hanhaga.. RCL wrote... Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the presence of your father, husband and son. R moshe as quoted only mentions husband/children. Where/how do we expand this to her brother? if it was bc of the simple pshat of the Mishna & gemora in Ketubos, then everyone should be ok inside (not just brother/family) and if the heter is based on inside - is uncovered hair allowed when swimming w husband/children alone (but outside)? (it is illogical to suggest that there is a continual obligation to cover her hair outside, even when a permissible situation such as alone or only with other women) Mc From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Aug 20 17:56:42 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 01:56:42 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. In-Reply-To: <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> References: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <000001d67755$efd44600$cf7cd200$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMC writes: <> Actually, this wasn't me, this was the yoetzet website you quoted. <> I assume that the reasoning behind the website's psak is based on with whom she is allowed to have yichud. Rav Moshe also doesn't specifically mention father, and yet the logic of the website including father as automatically on the same page as husband and children would seem to be driven by the unity of halacha regarding yichud. The yichud status of brothers is a bit more complex, as a certain level of yichud is allowed, but not completely, and hence they would seem the logical extension to question, and one could understand a view that, to the extent yichud is allowed, so should this be. >Mc Regards Chana From akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com Fri Aug 21 03:06:29 2020 From: akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 06:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > I'd love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - > machshava balma (random thought?) which has no halachic significance, > amira (specific oral articulation) which is completely binding and > amen/specific machshava (really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat > indeterminate (not welcome in a brisker world?) It seems to me that what you're really asking is: How/why does "Shomea k'oneh" work? Why is it that if I listen to someone say something, and we both have the correct "specific machshava", it is considered "as if" I had said it myself? And, just as importantly, to what *extent* is it considered as if I said it myself? As an illustration of this principle, R' Danny Schoemann cited the Kitzur in 127:3 > Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday > following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi > shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient... > Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, > you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself. I'd like to offer another illustration: If a person is saying Shemoneh Esreh when the shul is at Kaddish or Kedusha, Mechaber 104:7 writes that "He should be quiet and pay attention to the shatz, and it will be like he is answering." And the Mishne Berura 104:28 explains: "It will be like he is answering for the purpose of being thereby yotzay for Kaddish and Kedusha, but nevertheless it is not considered a hefsek." The halacha of Shomea K'oneh seems to allow us to have it both ways: We have *effectively* said something, yet not *actually* said anything. [Email #2. -micha] Addendum to what I wrote a few minutes ago: I know that Shomea K'Oneh is effective even when one does not actually respond "Amen". After all, a precise translation of the phrase would NOT be "listening is like answering Amen", but is rather "mere listening is like repeating it yourself." And yet, I seem to recall that there are some specific cases where the halacha differs depending on whether the person actually said "Amen" aloud, vs where he merely listened with all the correct intentions. Does anyone else know of such cases? Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 21:33:33 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:33:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: To prevent the spread of COVID see https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the shofar? Does it affect the sound? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Fri Aug 21 04:57:08 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:57:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21/8/20 12:33 am, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > To prevent the spread of COVID see > https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ > > What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the > shofar? Does it affect the sound? The OU says it doesn't appear to. https://www.ou.org/covid19/ 9. Shofar: An appropriate precaution during shofar blowing would be to place a surgical mask over the wider end of the shofar, as this does not appear to alter the sound of the shofar blast. Some may point the shofar out an open window or door, or near and towards the front wall or aron kodesh, facing away from the congregation. A single shofar should not be used by multiple people, and no barrier should be placed between the shofar and the mouth of the one blowing the shofar. Poskim have addressed when and how much to sound the shofar where the time in shul is seriously limited -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 12:07:00 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 15:07:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 07:33:33AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ > What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the > shofar? Does it affect the sound? As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does not affect the sound. But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer without specifying which kind(s) of masks they experimented with. The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else with sensitive hearing in the minyan, you need them to say they don't hear a difference if they personally wish to be yotzei.) But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use. Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices. Chodesh Tov! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but add justice, don't complain about heresy, Author: Widen Your Tent but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Sat Aug 22 17:47:42 2020 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 20:47:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:45 PM Micha Berger wrote: >> What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the >> shofar? Does it affect the sound? > As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does > not affect the sound. > But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer ... > The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound > of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else > with sensitive hearing in the minyan... > But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the > resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use. > Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from > the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices. I blow shofar for my shul. I have placed a surgical mask on the shofar and blew the shofar for the Rav both on and off without him looking at the shofar. He did not hear a real difference and I concurred. You can get a different sound from the shofar depending on how you place it on your lips and the amount of air used. Rav Shulman of YU / YI Midwood suggests blowing under your tallit or at a door without a mask on the shofar. From zev at sero.name Sun Aug 23 01:04:56 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 04:04:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does > not affect the sound. No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound, and is therefore permissible. I have no idea whether they're right, but this is what they say, and they know the halacha, so I assume they've done whatever is necessary to determine the metzius. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 06:11:31 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 09:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200823131130.GA6504@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 04:04:56AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does >> not affect the sound. > No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound... As per the rest of the post you're quoting: My comment was that they take it for granted that the mask(s) they tested with are indicative of the mask a member shul may be using. I would not. (Had I been in the OU, I would have been more specific about which brand mask.) But I'm not questioning their pesaq that listening on the other side of the mask is the original qol and not a "qol havarah". ("Hatoqeia lesokh habor, mishnah RH, on top of 27b in Vilna Bavli) I therefore isolated their halachic stance which from their depiction of the mtzi'us. Because I wanted to raise the question whether, even leshitasam, is a piano tuner or other person with sensitive hearing can hear a difference the rest of us can't, would he be yotzei. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect http://www.aishdas.org/asp painting? It's easy. Author: Widen Your Tent Make yourself perfect and then just paint - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 19:45:48 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 22:45:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault Message-ID: . At the Eglah Arufa, the zekeinim declare, "Our hands did not spill this blood! Our eyes did not see!" I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: > The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly > responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any > stranger from our city without food (so that he might have > been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or > without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected > on a dangerous road)." How can the zekeinim have been so sure? Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed? We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident? I considered the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas Orchim organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never will happen. (The three listed there, if I read it correctly, are Ben Sorer Umoreh, Ir Hanidachas, and a house getting tzaraas.) But it's *not* listed there, so I suppose it might have happened, or at least, *could* happen. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Sun Aug 23 06:35:32 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 13:35:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed? > > We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident? > > ??????- I?m not sure these are Mutually exclusive. Perhaps they are saying that the fault is not systemic and of course we have to see where we fell short and try to improve on it Kt Joel RichTHIS 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 zev at sero.name Sun Aug 23 07:39:22 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 10:39:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22/8/20 10:45 pm, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I considered?the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only > done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the > Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas?Orchim > organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever > occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been > listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never > will happen. The answer seems very simple. Not even the most thorough hachnassas orchim will ever prevent all murders, because most crimes are *not* committed out of need. The idea that the victim was actually a robber who was killed in legitimate self-defence, but in a further plot twist he only robbed out of desperate need, and had the city's elders done their job this would never have happened, is very far-fetched. The overwhelming likelihood is that he was an innocent person who was killed by a robber who was acting out of greed or sheer wickedness, as *most* robbers do. The Zekeinim are merely ruling out that far-fetched scenario in which they would bear some responsibility. And if you ask why, in that case, do they have to go through this whole rigmarole to rule it out, I suggest that it's so that this possibility is always on their minds, and they do their utmost to make sure that in the unlikely even that a body is ever found they should be *able* to make this declaration. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Aug 23 06:27:37 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:27:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Going swimming with your sister Message-ID: I always thought that brothers and sisters (even teenagers) could go mixed swimming privately just the immediate family because we assume that there are no hirhurim among immediate family members. However, I listened to the Headlines podcast where he interviewed an Israeli posek from Machon Puah who claimed that it was forbidden. Anyone have any sources? Piskei Halacha from modern poskim? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Aug 23 09:24:06 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:24:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee Message-ID: From https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-will-be-travelling-and-would-like-to-know-if-there-is-a-concern-of-bishul-akum-with-coffee-a-consumers-question I will be travelling and would like to know if there is a concern of bishul akum with coffee? (A consumer's question) OU Kosher Certification Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel. Raw coffee beans are inedible, a... See the above URL for more. From zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 24 09:27:09 2020 From: zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com (Zalman Alpert) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 12:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As > previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh > al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel. > Raw coffee beans are inedible, a... Great example of what DR Hayym Soloveitchik wrote about in his seminal essay Rupture and Reconstruction. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Aug 24 10:49:59 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 13:49:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200824174959.GF11765@aishdas.org> Bishul aku"m only applies to foods that are olim al shulchan melakhim. Qiddush can be made on chamar medinah. Seems to be a lower standard, when it comes to drinks, as the masses are unlikely to be pickier than their kings. The AhS (OC 272:12) ranks yayin and then sheikhar ahead of other drinks, but does include sweetened tea among the things one may make qiddush on. Similarly, IM OC 2:75. (Likely an indication of the price of sugar, RYME names tei matoq in particular as chamar medinah, not just writing "tei". Another measure of their poverty is his discussing their general use of raisin wine, as a reason why they were allowed to choose sheikhar even if wine was available. Meaning, I don't know if the AhS would allow this choice for us today.) But I am wondering benogei'ah to our original topic is whether it's possible to formulate a consistent shitah in which coffee can not be used for Qiddush and also cannot be used if bishul aku"m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message http://www.aishdas.org/asp that God is not yet discouraged with Author: Widen Your Tent humanity. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabindranath Tagore From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Aug 24 11:18:23 2020 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 14:18:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: I have an even better solution. Have the baal tekiah get a Covid test now and then a couple days before R?H and if both tests are negative and he is in good health, the chances of him having the virus is almost zero. From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 24 16:08:22 2020 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 7:02 PM Cantor Wolberg wrote: > Have the baal tekiah get a Covid test now and then a couple days before > R"H and if both tests are negative and he is in good health, the > chances of him having the virus is almost zero. It is possible to catch the virus after getting tested. Most tests take days to come back; by then you are contagious. Only if you test positive for antibodies, do you know that you have had the virus. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Aug 24 18:33:48 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:33:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee Message-ID: . According to the OU at the link posted, > Nonetheless, the Pri Chodosh writes that brewed coffee need > not be bishul Yisroel, since coffee is primarily water, and > water does not require bishul Yisroel. I have difficulty following that logic. Granted that if one looks at the ingredients, coffee is indeed primarily water. But why is that fact more relevant than the importance that society gives to this beverage? R' Micha Berger pointed out that Chamar Medinah "seems to be a lower standard" than Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim, and I'd agree. But I think it's irrelevant, because it is obvious to me that coffee is Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim. The dessert at a state dinner would not be s'mores and Slurpees; it would be elegant cakes and coffee. I suspect that for some reason (possibly the fact that Bishul Akum has little to do with kashrus and much to do with limiting our social contact with non-Jews), the rabbis went out of their way to find leniencies for it, and drinks is an example of such a leniency; I suspect that it never occurred to Chazal to extend the gezera beyond solid foods. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Aug 26 09:49:29 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:49:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Honoring Step Parents & More Message-ID: Please see https://vosizneias.com/2020/08/26/honoring-step-parents-more/ I found this to be a very interesting article YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 23:07:38 2020 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:07:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: It seems more reasonable to blow under the tallis without a mask. After a while, the tokea has to shake water out of the shofar. Slightly challenging with a mask on it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 23:11:27 2020 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:11:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Davening_at_home_on_Yamim_Nora=E2=80=99im?= Message-ID: This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. We will miss out on much of the ?experience? of the piyutim. Does anyone know of guidelines for what to do at home, such as part of chazarat haShatz? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 05:57:18 2020 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:57:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im Message-ID: RChaim Tafel wrote: > This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul > for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. > We will miss out on much of the "experience" of > the piyutim. Does anyone know of guidelines for > what to do at home, such as part of chazarat haShatz? Say them all except for the few you should only ever say when you are shatz, for example the netilot reshut, like all the misod chakhamim unevonim lines and such as the Ochila (which really, in my opinion, despite the popular tunes, the tzibbur should never say, as it is the netilat reshut for the shatz to insert the seder ha'avodah). Also skip obviously hineni he'ani mima'as, as it is for the shatz. Also skip the E-lohein vE-lohei Avoteinu heyei 'im pifiyot (which in my opinion the shatz shouldn't ever say, as it is a prayer for the shatz' success recited by the public). Finally, obviously whenever the cachzor calls for reciting 13 middot, depending on the poskim you follow, either skip or recite with te'amim. Otherwise I see no reason why you couldn'T beautifully sing your way through the entire machzor. But don't use one of these butchered machzorim, go for the real, unabbreviated, full and complete Rdelheim. (I am assuming you're ashkenazi, because Sefardi piyutim are altogether different). [Email #2. -micha] By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata Hu E-loheinu. In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. I am obviously totally tolerant, but it is still poetically wrong, objectively so. ;-) Ketiva vachatima tova, -- Mit freundlichen Gren, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Aug 28 06:14:15 2020 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 07:53 AM 8/28/2020, Chaim Tate wrote: >This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul for Rosh Hashanah and >Yom Kippur. >We will miss out on much of the ?experience? of the piyutim. >Does anyone know of guidelines for what to do at home, such as part of >chazarat haShatz? The YI of Midwood sent out an email saying that no piyyutim will be said during the davening on the Yomim Noraim. After all in many shuls the davening on Shabbos has been curtailed due to concerns about the virus. (no speeches and no singing). In some shuls people have been told to daven up to Baruch She'omer before coming to shul. So you won't be missing anything if other shuls follow the YI of Midwood! Personally I hope they do. Long davening can lead to the spread of the virus even with proper social distancing. Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said the it is better to daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more that 15 minutes , IIRC. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From crclbas at aol.com Fri Aug 28 06:49:54 2020 From: crclbas at aol.com (BenS) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:49:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Yomim Tovim References: <2007338277.6646156.1598622594128.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2007338277.6646156.1598622594128@mail.yahoo.com> The RCA And? ?YU have sent suggestions for shuls who want to skip certain piyutim. ASk your Rov for these guidelines. This can also be used for those who must daven at home. But be sure to arrange for Shofar on the second day. Minimum of 30 Kolos are needed. Shonoh Tovah!! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Aug 30 06:53:54 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 13:53:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos Message-ID: Please see https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-want-to-order-a-new-cell-phone-and-am-not-particular-when-it-will-arrive-am-i-permitted-to-place-an-order-online-if-the-website-indicates-the-package-will-arrive-on-saturday/?category&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shsh%20Ki%20Teitzei%205780%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=32470835&spUserID=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&spJobID=1764350018&spReportId=MTc2NDM1MDAxOAS2 YL I want to order a new cell phone and am not particular when it will arrive. Am I permitted to place an order online if the website indicates the package will arrive on Saturday? | OU Kosher Certification The issue here is whether arranging a delivery for Shabbos constitutes Amirah li?akum (instructing a non-Jew to perform melacha on Shabbos), which is prohibited. One might assume that this is analogous to handing a letter to a non-Jew on Friday and a... oukosher.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Aug 29 19:57:19 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 22:57:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d Message-ID: . In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? This may happen elsewhere too, but this case stands out because the form changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out to Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the contrast? If the third person was reasonable in the first part, why switch to the first person later on? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Aug 31 13:58:44 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-want-to-order-a-new-cell-phone-and-am-not-particular-when-it-will-arrive-am-i-permitted-to-place-an-order-online-if-the-website-indicates-the-package-will-arrive-on-saturday > One may not place an order if the delivery will definitely take place > on Shabbos. For example, one cannot send a package with UPS or FedEx > on Friday and select ?next day delivery?. Similarly, one cannot order > a refrigerator or washing machine from a store and arrange for a > Saturday delivery. I disagree with the author on this. Since they could choose to deliver after Shabbos and still fulfil their obligation, you are not telling them to deliver on Shabbos. In the winter this could actually happen. But even in the summer, when you can be fairly sure they won't do that, that's their choice not yours; if they did arrive after Shabbos you would have no right to complain, so you are not asking them to work on Shabbos. Only if they guarantee that "all deliveries will be made during business hours" or something similar would you not be allowed to order a Saturday delivery. And even then, if there's a space for delivery notes, and you write that late night delivery will be OK, that should be enough to permit it, even if you can be fairly sure it won't change anything. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Sep 1 06:53:18 2020 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:53:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > > From: Akiva Miller > > In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today > to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) > > Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > This may happen elsewhere too, I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the G-d of Avraham, etc. Therefore, the layman refers to the G-d of the Kohane, whose biblical role is to teach of Hashem and His Torah and therefore conceptualized Hashem more accurately. (I would have to concede that at first sight this does not work in cases where the person bringing the Bikkurim is actually greater than the Kohane. One can answer that it's a matter of *lo plug, *using a fixed formula for everyone at all times, following the normal situation. Or I would modify my explanation to say that the Kohane may not necessarily have a higher conceptualization but, through his avodah, a unique one not shared by others, which is relevant to the Bikkurim bringer in his role as such.) but this case stands out because the form > changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out to > Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the contrast?... > I think the above explanation works to explain this. In fact, note that the farmer is referring to the G-d of our "ancestors," meaning G-d as understood by the avos. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 12:29:01 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:29:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901192901.GA18013@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:53:18AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > This may happen elsewhere too, > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > G-d of Avraham, etc... I would have written something very similar, if RAM's email weren't still flagged "to do" in my email box when RZL's came in. However, I wouldn't have used the word "hasagah". I would have talked about the need to list "E-lokei Avraham", "E-lokai Yitzchaq" and "E-lokai Yaaqov" separately. To me, it speaks to the idea that the avos each had distinct relationships with the Borei. The "G-d of Avraham" was a different relationship than the G-d Yitzchaq "had" (kevayakhol). I don't know how RZL meant the word "hasagah", but to me it speaks to knowing *about* something. As in greater people have greater understandings of what G-d is. I would instead has said that "E-lokekha" is about the G-d the kohein has time to relate to more constantly than the farmer does. And it might also make the Vidui a statement about the farmer's relationship with G-d. Rather than who has more relationship, but about kidn of relationship. After all, the kohein may be learning, teaching and doing avodah all day, but the farmer teams up with G-d and relies on G-d to produce his crop. That's the point of the vidui -- that the G-d of Yetzias Mitzrayim gets credit for more day-to-day things my success. Something a kohein may only get more vicariously. So, he's saying to the kohein, "G-d is not only how you relate to Him from your ivory tower -- 'Your G-d', realize He also is intimately involved in my life and everyday life." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Interesting quote my signature generator chose from the perspective of being this close to the end of 5780. (Although we must remember, we are likely the first generation for whom life is normally so wonderful, this year qualified as a notably "bad" one.) -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 15:54:36 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901225436.GC18013@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:30:40PM -0400, Ken Bloom wrote: > Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one > should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in > finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. I'll give you "or elsewhere". Here's what I do. 1- During the year, I try to keep a cheshbon hanefesh. Laziness and momentum being what it is, that means that I usually have a journal of the decisions and reactions of a few 1 to 2 month stretches during the year. So, something I do early in Elul is review those, see patterns, what changed during the gaps... And trying to compensate changes because I was just focused on different things in different parts of the year. I then try to mentally fill in the gaps, as I can. And then I make a list of those issues in my reactions, decisions and actions that seem to have recurred a lot. It's often not the issues I was thinking I was failing at before I looked through notes. For that matter, even if you "just" keep a diary of your responses to the week -- not what happened to you, but how you responded to it -- from now to RH would give more insight to what habits and middos might really need the most attention. And to make that list, I try for a list of 2 to 4 items that both need the most attention and yet balanced with things I can actually tackle. For example, I have a long-running battle with ka'as. But it may not be the chink in the armor most ready to move. I might want to work on my frustration threshold, noting that my temper is very often the sum of frustration plus having someone I can pin blame on. And the plan has to be incremental. Not "starting YK I never will..." or "will always", but "starting YK I will take the first step to... which is..." For exmple, not expressing frustration in a given set of situations. Or maybe right after work for the first hour I'm home. Or whatever. 2- So much for correcting past mistakes. My other step is something Bank of America mislabeled Hoshin Planning that I adapted for life. https://www.aishdas.org/asp/hoshin-plan 2a- Find a Mission Statement At this point, I have a mission statement I aspire to live by. The first year, I didn't. I picked a quote from a sefer that at the time (and still) really moved me. Look for something from a seifer (including the siddur) that sums up life's mission for you. Is it about deveiqus? And if about deveiqus -- what does that mean to you? Knowledge (as per the Rambam)? Experiencing the Divine? Having a relationship with Hashem? Partnering with Him in His Work -- and what is His Work? Or maybe you see it in terms of sheleimus or temimus. But then, what is a person supposed to be, that you can talk about being more perfect at being one? Is it emulating Hashem? Or bein adam lachaveiro? Or maybe you're on another page altogether -- you see the Torah's mission for your life in terms of Jewish Nationhood, or humanity. And I realize many of those will yield different phrasing of nearly the same answer. But only nearly the same. There could be situations where connotations matter and have a nafqa mina lemaaseh. But in any case, it has to be moving and inspiring based on the way HQBH made you. In short -- a sentence or two about how you see what the Torah is telling you to be at this point in your life. After the first year, you tweak it and revise it as you change. 2b- Drilling down A Mission Statement is pointless if it doesn't have a way to influence action. In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for the firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could help reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division. His group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc... The idea is that there is an individual programmer like myself can be shown how my program fits in the team's goal, the group's goal and so on up to the firm's goal as written up in the Mission Statement. Similarly life's Mission Statement. We can divide it and subdivide it into managable lists. Maybe three bullet items as top-level goals to make the mission statament happen. And 2-4 each for each of those goals to make subgoals and so on. The idea is to get to the point that when you decide to go to the kitchen to get a cup of coffee, you have a way to relate that decision to the approach to living al pi haTorah that you framed for yourself. Let me give an example, taken from the above blog page. Since I wrote a book based on R Shimon's haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher, the quote would be no surprise. For that matter, ch. 2 is titled "Mission Statement" and is a collection of thoughts about the openining sentence of the haqdamah. See the first paragraph of the copy in Widen Your Tent sec 1.1, pg 45 of the book or pg 4 of https://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf#page=4 So, my orignal mission statement translates to (it is important to be in first person singular): [My] greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that [I] walk in His ways. Now I can divide that into three subgoals: - Having a connection to G-d - Internalizing His Will - Being a conduit of Hashem's Good into the lives of others. Internalizing His will, for example, was first subdivided into - Daily learning (which is what drives projects like AhS Yomi) - Daily Mussar work (like what I'm describing in this post), and - Regular in-depth learning -- chavrusos, shiurim, etc... Notice at this point I can start filling in things I can do this year. What learning? Which shiurim? As in part 1 -- which middos and what are the first months' exercises to chip away at them. (And buying a pretty new notebook. Somehow I do best at cheshbon hanefesh when I have a kewl new toy to do it with.) Hopefully, by month end when this "Spiritual Hoshin Plan" is done, I can pause in the middle of the workday and be able to say for myself that I'm putting up with this irate trader on the phone (I work for a Hedge Fund) so that I can pay for tuition (goal 3.2.4.2.5 or some-such), I can develop my personal creativity (as per 1.2... as being in the image of the Creator is something I view as a Mussar goal), etc.. And thereby give sanctity to an otherwise mundane (and stressfull) activity. And then every year things shift. Both in how I look at the world and in what are the pressing issues requiring more attention. Where parenting sits in the hierarchy was very different when I started than now that my youngest is a teenager. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. http://www.aishdas.org/asp It preserves health, promotes convalescence, Author: Widen Your Tent and helps us cope with adversity. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 12:46:48 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:46:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901194648.GB18013@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:45:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In > the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: >> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly >> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any >> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have >> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or >> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected >> on a dangerous road)." > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed > through unnoticed? Does it say that unnoticed strangers are included? The gemara (Sotah 46b) says (original at https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.9 ): Would it cross our minds that BD were murderers? Rather [they are saying]: He did not come to us and we dismissed him without food. We didn't see him and leave him without accompaniment. My translation matches the TMS's, minus their parenthetic comments. (Which I will now assume is the author's insertions, rather than part of the medrash.) The two phrases "lo ba leyadeinu" and "vera'inhu" seem to me to mean the BD are saying that the didn't neglect anyone they knew of. That not knowing the person was in town would be one of the reasons they wouldn't be guilty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the http://www.aishdas.org/asp better if possible, and of changing himself for Author: Widen Your Tent the better if necessary. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 05:00:31 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos Message-ID: . Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day away. I think it is assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. In contrast, if I request Monday delivery, that would be okay, even though I know that they'll be working for me on Shabbos, because it was their choice to work on Saturday rather than Sunday. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 07:11:20 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:11:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:00:31AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? Well, if there isn't a contracted delivery date of Shabbos, then it's their choice whether to do melakhah for you on Shabbos, Friday or Sunday. The package could sit around in a transfer facility for 25 hours while they deal with more urgent packages if it's not the delivery date. The choice is theirs. But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. I guess in the case of (eg) 3 day delivery, since it wouldn't violate the contract to get it there in 2, someone might argue that you aren't asking them to do the delivery on Shabbos. But I don't know if mutar alternatives matter even when they're implausible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Sep 2 11:46:49 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:46:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66cf413b-bbfa-c02e-885f-8a8bb7e152ce@sero.name> On 2/9/20 8:00 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day > away. I think it is?assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know > that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. I agree, *if* you know where it's coming from, and that it's not bich'dei sheyei'asu without working on Shabbos. But in the general case you don't know that, and I don't see why you have to worry about it just on spec. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 17:45:46 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:45:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said that it is better to daven a > little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that > selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more than 15 > minutes, IIRC. It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time that's been taken from them. Much more important is the speed at which it is said. If the length of time would remain constant, but pages were skipped so that the rest could be said carefully and attentively, THAT'S what Chazal meant by "better to daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Sep 2 13:49:48 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:49:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. ------------------------------- And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's Saturday delivery and you say nothing? KVCT 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 akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 18:08:38 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:08:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: . In the thread "Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im", R' Arie Folger wrote: > By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper > recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused > wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata > Hu E-loheinu. > > In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to > read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next > line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the > opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, > so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the > proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. I can see where some people might read the above, and feel that Rabbi Folger is being subjective and arbitrary in his choices of "proper" and "wrong". I had my brain all psyched up to spend the next hour or so writing a post to explain how he is objectively correct, and then I remembered that we covered this ground four years ago. Anyone who wants to learn more about how the recitation of these piyutim got messed up is strongly invited to review the thread "conservatism in davening" at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CONSERVATISM%20IN%20DAVENING Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mzeldman2 at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 00:33:32 2020 From: mzeldman2 at gmail.com (Moshe Zeldman) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 10:33:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If one should not say ?starting YK I will never...?, then how does that fit with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the vidui is saying ?and I will never do X again?? It sounds difficult to read into the Rambam that he means ?I?m still going to be doing X but I have a plan to eventually stop? On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 4:12 wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > > avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/ > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms > > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Hashem your G-d (Zvi Lampel) > > 2. Re: Hashem your G-d (Micha Berger) > > 3. Re: What to do in Elul? (Micha Berger) > > 4. Re: It's not our fault (Micha Berger) > > 5. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Akiva Miller) > > 6. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Micha Berger) > > 7. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Zev Sero) > > 8. Re: Davening at home on Yamim Noraim (Akiva Miller) > > 9. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Rich, Joel) > > 10. Re: conservatism in davening (Akiva Miller) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:53:18 -0400 > > From: Zvi Lampel > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , > > Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d > > Message-ID: > > < > CAPxEyabfrsb8kDLQzd7BTYpcZcQqOcyaDrjdZbyW8pD-K46QbA at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > > > > > > > > From: Akiva Miller > > > > > > In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today > > > to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) > > > > > > Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > > > > > This may happen elsewhere too, > > > > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher > > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers > > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > > G-d of Avraham, etc. Therefore, the layman refers to the G-d of the Kohane, > > whose biblical role is to teach of Hashem and His Torah and therefore > > conceptualized Hashem more accurately. > > > > (I would have to concede that at first sight this does not work in > > cases where the person bringing the Bikkurim is actually greater than the > > Kohane. One can answer that it's a matter of *lo plug, *using a fixed > > formula for everyone at all times, following the normal situation. Or I > > would modify my explanation to say that the Kohane may not necessarily have > > a higher conceptualization but, through his avodah, a unique one not shared > > by others, which is relevant to the Bikkurim bringer in his role as such.) > > > > but this case stands out because the form > > > changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out > to > > > Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the > contrast?... > > > > > > > I think the above explanation works to explain this. In fact, note that the > > farmer is referring to the G-d of our "ancestors," meaning G-d as > > understood by the avos. > > > > Zvi Lampel > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200901/89f8687e/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:29:01 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller , Zvi Lampel > > > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d > > Message-ID: <20200901192901.GA18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:53:18AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > > >> Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > > > > > This may happen elsewhere too, > > > > > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are > higher > > > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and > refers > > > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > > > G-d of Avraham, etc... > > > > I would have written something very similar, if RAM's email weren't still > > flagged "to do" in my email box when RZL's came in. > > > > However, I wouldn't have used the word "hasagah". I would have talked about > > the need to list "E-lokei Avraham", "E-lokai Yitzchaq" and "E-lokai Yaaqov" > > separately. > > > > To me, it speaks to the idea that the avos each had distinct relationships > > with the Borei. The "G-d of Avraham" was a different relationship than > > the G-d Yitzchaq "had" (kevayakhol). > > > > I don't know how RZL meant the word "hasagah", but to me it speaks to > knowing > > *about* something. As in greater people have greater understandings of what > > G-d is. > > > > I would instead has said that "E-lokekha" is about the G-d the kohein has > > time to relate to more constantly than the farmer does. > > > > And it might also make the Vidui a statement about the farmer's > > relationship with G-d. Rather than who has more relationship, but about > > kidn of relationship. > > > > After all, the kohein may be learning, teaching and doing avodah all > > day, but the farmer teams up with G-d and relies on G-d to produce his > > crop. That's the point of the vidui -- that the G-d of Yetzias Mitzrayim > > gets credit for more day-to-day things my success. Something a kohein > > may only get more vicariously. > > > > So, he's saying to the kohein, "G-d is not only how you relate to Him > > from your ivory tower -- 'Your G-d', realize He also is intimately > > involved in my life and everyday life." > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger If you're going through hell > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. > > Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > PS: Interesting quote my signature generator chose from the perspective > > of being this close to the end of 5780. (Although we must remember, we > > are likely the first generation for whom life is normally so wonderful, > > this year qualified as a notably "bad" one.) > > > > -- > > Micha Berger If you're going through hell > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. > > Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:54:36 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: avodah at aishdas.org, Ken Bloom > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? > > Message-ID: <20200901225436.GC18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:30:40PM -0400, Ken Bloom wrote: > > > Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what > one > > > should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in > > > finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. > > > > I'll give you "or elsewhere". Here's what I do. > > > > 1- > > > > During the year, I try to keep a cheshbon hanefesh. Laziness and momentum > > being what it is, that means that I usually have a journal of the decisions > > and reactions of a few 1 to 2 month stretches during the year. > > > > So, something I do early in Elul is review those, see patterns, what > > changed during the gaps... And trying to compensate changes because I > > was just focused on different things in different parts of the year. > > I then try to mentally fill in the gaps, as I can. And then I make a > > list of those issues in my reactions, decisions and actions that seem > > to have recurred a lot. It's often not the issues I was thinking I was > > failing at before I looked through notes. > > > > For that matter, even if you "just" keep a diary of your responses to the > > week -- not what happened to you, but how you responded to it -- from now > > to RH would give more insight to what habits and middos might really need > > the most attention. > > > > And to make that list, I try for a list of 2 to 4 items that both need the > > most attention and yet balanced with things I can actually tackle. For > > example, I have a long-running battle with ka'as. But it may not be > > the chink in the armor most ready to move. I might want to work on my > > frustration threshold, noting that my temper is very often the sum of > > frustration plus having someone I can pin blame on. > > > > And the plan has to be incremental. Not "starting YK I never will..." > > or "will always", but "starting YK I will take the first step to... > > which is..." > > > > For exmple, not expressing frustration in a given set of situations. > > Or maybe right after work for the first hour I'm home. Or whatever. > > > > 2- > > > > So much for correcting past mistakes. My other step is something > > Bank of America mislabeled Hoshin Planning that I adapted for life. > > > > https://www.aishdas.org/asp/hoshin-plan > > > > 2a- Find a Mission Statement > > > > At this point, I have a mission statement I aspire to live by. > > > > The first year, I didn't. I picked a quote from a sefer that at the time > > (and still) really moved me. Look for something from a seifer (including > > the siddur) that sums up life's mission for you. Is it about deveiqus? > > And if about deveiqus -- what does that mean to you? Knowledge (as per > > the Rambam)? Experiencing the Divine? Having a relationship with Hashem? > > Partnering with Him in His Work -- and what is His Work? Or maybe you see > > it in terms of sheleimus or temimus. But then, what is a person supposed > > to be, that you can talk about being more perfect at being one? Is it > > emulating Hashem? Or bein adam lachaveiro? Or maybe you're on another > > page altogether -- you see the Torah's mission for your life in terms > > of Jewish Nationhood, or humanity. > > > > And I realize many of those will yield different phrasing of nearly the > same > > answer. But only nearly the same. There could be situations where > connotations > > matter and have a nafqa mina lemaaseh. But in any case, it has to be moving > > and inspiring based on the way HQBH made you. > > > > In short -- a sentence or two about how you see what the Torah is telling > > you to be at this point in your life. > > > > After the first year, you tweak it and revise it as you change. > > > > 2b- Drilling down > > > > A Mission Statement is pointless if it doesn't have a way to influence > > action. > > > > In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for the > > firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could help > > reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division. His > > group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc... The idea is that > > there is an individual programmer like myself can be shown how my program > > fits in the team's goal, the group's goal and so on up to the firm's goal > > as written up in the Mission Statement. > > > > Similarly life's Mission Statement. We can divide it and subdivide it > > into managable lists. Maybe three bullet items as top-level goals to > > make the mission statament happen. And 2-4 each for each of those > > goals to make subgoals and so on. > > > > The idea is to get to the point that when you decide to go to the kitchen > > to get a cup of coffee, you have a way to relate that decision to the > > approach to living al pi haTorah that you framed for yourself. > > > > Let me give an example, taken from the above blog page. > > > > Since I wrote a book based on R Shimon's haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher, > > the quote would be no surprise. For that matter, ch. 2 is titled > > "Mission Statement" and is a collection of thoughts about the > > openining sentence of the haqdamah. See the first paragraph of > > the copy in Widen Your Tent sec 1.1, pg 45 of the book or pg 4 of > > https://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf#page=4 > > > > So, my orignal mission statement translates to (it is important to > > be in first person singular): > > [My] greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals > > and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator > > (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according > > to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the > > creations. So too His Will is that [I] walk in His ways. > > > > Now I can divide that into three subgoals: > > - Having a connection to G-d > > - Internalizing His Will > > - Being a conduit of Hashem's Good into the lives of others. > > > > Internalizing His will, for example, was first subdivided into > > - Daily learning (which is what drives projects like AhS Yomi) > > - Daily Mussar work (like what I'm describing in this post), and > > - Regular in-depth learning -- chavrusos, shiurim, etc... > > > > Notice at this point I can start filling in things I can do this year. > > What learning? Which shiurim? As in part 1 -- which middos and what are > > the first months' exercises to chip away at them. (And buying a pretty > > new notebook. Somehow I do best at cheshbon hanefesh when I have a > > kewl new toy to do it with.) > > > > Hopefully, by month end when this "Spiritual Hoshin Plan" is done, I > > can pause in the middle of the workday and be able to say for myself > > that I'm putting up with this irate trader on the phone (I work for a > > Hedge Fund) so that I can pay for tuition (goal 3.2.4.2.5 or some-such), > > I can develop my personal creativity (as per 1.2... as being in the > > image of the Creator is something I view as a Mussar goal), etc.. And > > thereby give sanctity to an otherwise mundane (and stressfull) activity. > > > > And then every year things shift. Both in how I look at the world and in > > what are the pressing issues requiring more attention. Where parenting > > sits in the hierarchy was very different when I started than now that my > > youngest is a teenager. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable > treasure. > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp It preserves health, promotes convalescence, > > Author: Widen Your Tent and helps us cope with adversity. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of > Mishlei" > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:46:48 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] It's not our fault > > Message-ID: <20200901194648.GB18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:45:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > > > I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In > > > the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: > > > > >> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly > > >> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any > > >> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have > > >> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or > > >> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected > > >> on a dangerous road)." > > > > > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > > > > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have > passed > > > through unnoticed? > > > > Does it say that unnoticed strangers are included? > > > > The gemara (Sotah 46b) says (original at > https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.9 ): > > Would it cross our minds that BD were murderers? > > > > Rather [they are saying]: He did not come to us and we dismissed him > > without food. We didn't see him and leave him without accompaniment. > > > > My translation matches the TMS's, minus their parenthetic comments. (Which > > I will now assume is the author's insertions, rather than part of the > > medrash.) > > > > The two phrases "lo ba leyadeinu" and "vera'inhu" seem to me to mean > > the BD are saying that the didn't neglect anyone they knew of. That not > > knowing the person was in town would be one of the reasons they wouldn't > > be guilty. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp better if possible, and of changing himself > for > > Author: Widen Your Tent the better if necessary. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Victor Frankl, Man's search for > Meaning > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:31 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: > > KNCNNA at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on > > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? > > > > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day away. I > > think it is assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know that it won't > > be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. In contrast, > > if I request Monday delivery, that would be okay, even though I know that > > they'll be working for me on Shabbos, because it was their choice to work > > on Saturday rather than Sunday. > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/5837fd1d/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:11:20 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: <20200902141120.GA27483 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:00:31AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus > on > > > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? > > > > Well, if there isn't a contracted delivery date of Shabbos, then it's > > their choice whether to do melakhah for you on Shabbos, Friday or Sunday. > > The package could sit around in a transfer facility for 25 hours while > > they deal with more urgent packages if it's not the delivery date. The > > choice is theirs. > > > > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > > > > I guess in the case of (eg) 3 day delivery, since it wouldn't violate the > > contract to get it there in 2, someone might argue that you aren't > > asking them to do the delivery on Shabbos. But I don't know if mutar > > alternatives matter even when they're implausible. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his > fellow > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew > worries > > Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's > stomach. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:46:49 -0400 > > From: Zev Sero > > To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: <66cf413b-bbfa-c02e-885f-8a8bb7e152ce at sero.name> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > > On 2/9/20 8:00 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day > > > away. I think it is?assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know > > > that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during > Shabbos. > > > > I agree, *if* you know where it's coming from, and that it's not > > bich'dei sheyei'asu without working on Shabbos. But in the general case > > you don't know that, and I don't see why you have to worry about it just > > on spec. > > > > -- > > Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer > > zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:45:46 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim > > Message-ID: > > < > CABiM0c+1patT7b5FcLCxbn8wuZsCXzmoGyC846J6cQxP-9JJjQ at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > > > > > Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said that it is better to daven a > > > little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that > > > selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more than 15 > > > minutes, IIRC. > > > > It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing > > to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better > > than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time > > that's been taken from them. > > > > Much more important is the speed at which it is said. If the length of time > > would remain constant, but pages were skipped so that the rest could be > > said carefully and attentively, THAT'S what Chazal meant by "better to > > daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without." > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/455f462f/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 9 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:49:48 +0000 > > From: "Rich, Joel" > > To: 'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group' > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: > > < > CY4PR02MB25993558995FE1F789868116BF2F0 at CY4PR02MB2599.namprd02.prod.outlook.com > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > > ------------------------------- > > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's > Saturday delivery and you say nothing? > > KVCT > > 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 10 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:08:38 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] conservatism in davening > > Message-ID: > > < > CABiM0cJ4esqYBS9zWh5bP1UnGZYs67zrTwZ+HeYOcVVLWc9ULw at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > In the thread "Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im", R' Arie Folger wrote: > > > > > By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper > > > recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused > > > wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata > > > Hu E-loheinu. > > > > > > In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to > > > read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next > > > line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the > > > opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, > > > so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the > > > proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. > > > > I can see where some people might read the above, and feel that Rabbi > > Folger is being subjective and arbitrary in his choices of "proper" and > > "wrong". I had my brain all psyched up to spend the next hour or so writing > > a post to explain how he is objectively correct, and then I remembered that > > we covered this ground four years ago. > > > > Anyone who wants to learn more about how the recitation of these piyutim > > got messed up is strongly invited to review the thread "conservatism in > > davening" at > > > https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CONSERVATISM%20IN%20DAVENING > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/fc503c3c/attachment.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Avodah mailing list > > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah > > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 38, Issue 72 > > ************************************** > > -- ----------------------------- Moshe Zeldman Israel: (+972) 54 256 2888 US/Canada: 647 580 8965 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 18:34:46 2020 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:34:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d Message-ID: In Avodah V38n72, RZL noted: > This may happen elsewhere too < The first example which came into my mind when I saw RAMiller's message was a phrase in the P'Zachor *haftara* -- see I Sam 15:15. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 3 09:09:03 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 12:09:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <15e6bfd6-3399-dbb5-a721-6671f0b31da4@sero.name> On 2/9/20 4:49 pm, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > ------------------------------- > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's Saturday delivery and you say nothing? That should be fine. It's their decision, not yours. You told them you don't mind if they deliver it on Sunday. It's the same as dropping something off at the cleaners right before Shabbos and telling them you want it by 6 AM on Sunday. Since they could work on it all night Motzei Shabbos, you're fine, even though you know they will choose not to. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 18:13:02 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 21:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul Message-ID: . R' Moshe Zeldman asked: > If one should not say "starting YK I will never...", then how > does that fit with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the > vidui is saying "and I will never do X again"? > It sounds difficult to read into the Rambam that he means "I'm > still going to be doing X but I have a plan to eventually stop" Yes, the Rambam does say that at the beginning of Perek 1. But Perek 2 is all about less-than-ideal sorts of teshuva. I concede that I didn't notice the Rambam explicitly mentioning this weaning as a legitimate less-than-ideal form of teshuva. But still, it is hard for me to imagine that he would invalidate someone who said, "I did it, and I should not have done it, and I feel sorry that I did it, and in the future I will do it less than I used to." And even if the Rambam *would* say that such a person has *not* done teshuva, remember the context in which this idea was suggested: a person who has repeatedly found this particular aveira unusually difficult to conquer. Imagine further, that this person succeeds in a slow elimination of this aveira, and after many years - decades perhaps - he has finally conquered it. Such a person would certainly be no less of a Baal Teshuva than the one who the Rambam described in the middle section of halacha 2:1: "Even if he didn't do teshuva until his elderly days, and when it was impossible for his to do what he used to do, even though it's not an excellent teshuva, it still helps him, and he is a Baal Teshuva." Please note that this person described by the Rambam did not even begin regretting his sins until he was too old to do them. That's NOT the case we're discussing. We're discussing someone who still has to battle the yetzer hara. I can't help but wonder if this person, who executed a long, slow, but ultimately successful plan, might get the mitzva of Teshuva retroactively, to the beginning of that plan, maybe even according to the Rambam. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 10:43:29 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:43:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200904174329.GB3095@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:33:32AM +0300, Moshe Zeldman via Avodah wrote: > If one should not say "starting YK I will never...", then how does that fit > with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the vidui is saying "and I > will never do X again"? I'm going to shift topics a little from what the Rambam says should be done to what experience (and 20th cent Mussar sefarim) has shown does work. Lots of diets I promised myself I would start right after the chagim never happened. So, I don't think there is much commitment in "starting YK I will never..." Maybe we should be following the incremental approach... Promising now to take steps that by Yom Kippur I would be up to not doing X again, and by Chanukah not doing X-1, and by Pesach, X-2, and by next YK... Again, not claiming you can read that into the Rambam. But it does fit the Rambam's requirements for vidui while still having more chance of success than expecitng to be able to permanently change habits and character on a dime. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. http://www.aishdas.org/asp The purpose of life Author: Widen Your Tent is to give it away. -- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -- Pablo Picasso From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 10:58:49 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:58:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200904175849.GC3095@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:45:46PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing > to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better > than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time > that's been taken from them. Speaking specifically of "echad hamarbeh. ve'echad hamam'it..." and not trying to fit more services into the same number of rooms in the same morning or other pandemic issues... The idea is usually invoked for those of us who abbreviate Pesuqei deZimra in order to say fewer peraqim of Tehillim in the same time the minyan is saying more of them. Not to save time, but to spend more thought and similar time on fewer actions (in this case, speech). BUT... The past century has seen a HUGE shrinkage (sorry for the oxymoron) in attention spans. So, the more likely alternative of 15 minutes of rushed mumbeling may be better than an hour of mumbling while one's mind wanders. For many people, even on Yamim Noraim. May even have a net minus in the minimal kavanah of a rushed mumble. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] http://www.aishdas.org/asp isn't complete with being careful in the laws Author: Widen Your Tent of Passover. One must also be very careful in - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:48:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 14:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20200904184852.GD3095@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:49:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >> But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after >> hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's > Saturday delivery and you say nothing? Can it depend on who makes the decision? What if I ask one set of people to deliver my package, but another set of people make it impossible for them to get into the warehouse / vehicle on Sunday? And if I could guess as much that even if they wanted to deliver on Sunday it's not really in their power to do so? :-)BBii! -Micha From seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:25 2020 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2020 10:31:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avos - Shepherds Message-ID: The Avos ? Forefathers - (and Moshe Rabbeinu and Dovid HaMelech and others) were shepherds. Did they eat sheep? The few times when eating from the flock is mentioned, it seems to be goats (eg, Rivka feeding Yitzchak). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Sep 6 13:24:42 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:24:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Use a Public Grill? Message-ID: >From https://www.kosher.com/lifestyle/can-one-use-a-public-grill-1259 [https://www.kosher.com/resized/open_graph/s/h/shutterstock_442567648_banner.jpg] Can One Use a Public Grill? | Lifestyle | Kosher.com Shailah of the Week by Rabbi Zvi Nussbaum Rabbinic Coordinator, Kosher Hotline Administrator for the Orthodox Union Since a campground grill has been used to cook non-kosher foods (non-kosher meats and fish...), it may not be used unless it is properly kashered. The only way to kasher a gr... www.kosher.com Since a campground grill has been used to cook non-kosher foods (non-kosher meats and fish...), it may not be used unless it is properly kashered. The only way to kasher a grill top is with libun gamur (heating until the entire surface of the grill top rack becomes red hot). This can be accomplished by submerging the surface of the grill into burning charcoal. Even if the grill was used within the past 24 hours to cook non-kosher, and even if the grill had not been cleaned, it may still be kashered in this manner, since the intense heat will burn up all non-kosher residue and taste. There is no need to tovel the grill (immerse the grill in a mikvah), since it does not belong to you. It is owned by the park. Instead of kashering the grill, an easier option is to bring along your own grill top and a couple of bricks. If the non-kosher grill can be lifted out of the way, the kosher grill may be put in its place, balanced on the bricks. If you purchase a new grill top, it must be toveled before it is used. A third option is to double wrap your food with two layers of aluminum foil. Once properly wrapped, they may be placed directly on the non-kosher grill. In this case, it is better to clean the grill top first, or let the coals burn off the grease, before placing the double-wrapped food on top. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Sep 6 13:49:28 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:49:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pas Yisroel Message-ID: See https://www.crcweb.org/Pas%20Yisroel%20article%20.pdf Pas Yisroel during Aseres Y?mei Teshuvah Pas Yisroel By: Rabbi Dovid Cohen Administrative Rabbinic Coordinator, cRc Background In the times of the Mishnah, and possible even earlier, Chazal www.crcweb.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Sep 7 04:02:28 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:02:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] 10PM Slichot Message-ID: Anyone know why R' Moshe in O"C 2:105 didn't suggest pre-shacharit slichot rather than 10Pm slichot as a stand in for chatzot (midnight) slichot on the first night of slichot when there was a clear and present danger? Kvct 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 michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 11:26:57 2020 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:26:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another example, seen via this week's ShMOT: Deu 31 :26. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolberg at yebo.co.za Mon Sep 7 03:41:23 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 12:41:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 Message-ID: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> "And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. And so paskened the Geonei Olam for about [the last] eighty years. And this is the essential halocha." I have several questions about this. 1. Surely the use of Yiddish translations was very common and accepted? 2. Is this a response to the Reform use of German translations? 3. While the translation of the Shema might be problematic, translation of shemoneh esrei and brochas is surely not the same issue? From zev at sero.name Tue Sep 8 08:01:13 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 11:01:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10PM Slichot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0c0a2053-cf70-2689-d048-d3d3a7c9eab4@sero.name> On 7/9/20 7:02 am, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Anyone know why R? Moshe in O?C 2:105 didn?t suggest pre-shacharit > slichot rather than 10Pm slichot as a stand in for chatzot (midnight) > slichot on the first night of slichot when there was a clear and present > danger? The teshuva isn't about the first night, it's about all the days of selichos, and the situation is that it's impossible to do it either at midnight *or* before dawn. He takes it for granted that selichos must be said at night, Kumi Roni Valayla, and at an Eis Ratzon, which means any time between midnight and dawn, and says the minhag to do it at the end of the night, before dawn, is for convenience. So he reluctantly allows it after the first third of the night, with the proviso that it must be publicised that this is a hora'as sha'ah. Why doesn't he even consider doing it in the morning after daylight? I can think of two possibilities: Perhaps because selichos must be at night; or perhaps because people have to go to work and can't fit selichos in at their normal time for shacharis, and it's already posited in the question that for some reason they can't start earlier. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781 zev at sero.name "May this year and its curses end May a new year and its blessings begin" From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 11:43:48 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 14:43:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dates from Ancient Genes and Koseves Message-ID: <20200908184348.GA9440@aishdas.org> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/07/world/middleeast/israel-judean-dates-agriculture.html KETURA, Israel The plump, golden-brown dates hanging in a bunch just above the sandy soil were finally ready to pick. They had been slowly ripening in the desert heat for months. But the young tree on which they grew had a much more ancient history sprouting from a 2,000-year-old seed retrieved from an archaeological site in the Judean wilderness. Quick, can someone get the volume of these things before Yom Kippur? Kidding aside.... Do people think that the shiur of a kekoseves should be re-assessed, if necessary, based on this newly available data? RYBS, and his version of R Chaim's argument against Radziner tekheiles (or his argument against assuming orez = rice) would imply we don't. Halakhah can only be founded upon mesorah, not scientific data. My summary of that section of Nefesh haRav is at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n073.shtml#12 Anyone want to provide meqoros for other opinions? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... http://www.aishdas.org/asp ... but you're the pilot. Author: Widen Your Tent - R' Zelig Pliskin - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Sep 8 17:48:57 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 00:48:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] directed donations Message-ID: Question someone I know got concerning a contribution: Do you want your donation to the shul to be ?????? ???? ??? Response: I?d go with anonymous and pray that hkbh directs his accountant to allocate it to where it?s most needed. As a matter fact maybe that should be the inscription Thoughts? Kvct 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 llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 9 05:50:41 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 12:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 565:5) writes that the ?Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim? (thirteen attributes of mercy, Shemos 34:6-7) may not be recited unless there is a minyan. When these pesukim are recited in the context of prayer, they have the elevated status of a ?davar she?bikedusha,? like Kaddish or Kedusha, that may only be said in the presence of a minyan. The Mishnah Berurah (581:4) writes that Selichos that mention the Yud Gimmel Middos may be said, provided that those lines are skipped. If one prefers to say the Yud Gimmel Middos, he may do so if he recites them with the trop (cantillation) used for krias haTorah, as that indicates that it is not being recited as a tefillah (M?B 565:12). Mishnah Berurah also adds that any Selichos that are written in Aramaic should be skipped. The basis for this is the Gemara (Sotah 33a), in which Rebbi Yochanan states that angels do not deliver prayers that were recited in Aramaic, but when praying with a minyan one does not need the assistance of angels. Hashem?s presence is in the midst of the minyan and there is no need for angelic intervention. The Mishnah Berurah concludes, if there is no minyan at the beginning of Selichos, Kaddish is not said after Ashrei. Instead, the group should begin reciting Selichos. When the tenth man arrives, the congregation should recite three pesukim together, recite Kaddish and then continue from where they left off. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Sep 10 05:44:42 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:44:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When to Say Se;lichos Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. What is preferable? To wake up early and recite Selichos before dawn (a.k.a. alos hashachar, which is 72 minutes before sunrise), or to stay up late and recite Selichos after chatzos (midnight)? What about saying selichos after alos or after neitz hachama (sunrise)? A. Rav Yitzchak Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Yoma 22a) writes that the preferred time to recite Selichos is before dawn. This can be inferred from the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 3:4) who writes that it is customay to awake at night and recite Selichos until the morning. In addition, Mishnah Berurah (581:1) writes that the end of the night is an eis rotzon (a propitious time when G-d is receptive to prayer), implying that the early mornoing is the most appropriate time for Selichos. Finally, the She?arim Metzuyanim B?Halacah (Yoma 22a) notes that Selichos recited in the early morning is more effective, since it is recited through greater sacrifice; it is more difficult to wake up early than to stay up late. May Selichos be rected after sunrise? Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Divrei Si?ach, vol. 134) holds that it is preferable to recite Selichos after Chatzos than to recite Selichos later in the day after sunrise. On the otherhand, Rav Elyashav and Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach take an oposite opinion and write that it is better to recite Selichos in the daytime (even after sunrise) than to say it after chatzos (quoted in MB Dirshu MB, 581:1). Similiary, the Aruch Hashulchan writes that it has been customary to say selichos in the morning after sunrise for many generations. On the other hand, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt?l (Igros Moshe OC, 2:105) writes that kabalistically, the period after chatzos is as much an eis ratzon as early dawn, and for this reason, for many generations, it has been customary to recite Selichos at night after chatzos. This is also the opinion of the Minchas Elazar (the previous Munkatcher Rebbi), as recorded in Divrei Torah (141:76). Even those who recomend saying selichos in early morning before sunrise agree that on the first night of Selichos, on Motzei Shabbos, it is preferable to recite Selichos after Chatzos. This is because we wish to combine the merit of Shabbos together with the first Selichos. Therefore, we begin Selichos after Chatzos, and do not wait for the early morning (Chashukei Chemed, ibid.). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 15:12:12 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:12:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 In-Reply-To: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> References: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> Message-ID: <20200910221212.GB12180@aishdas.org> Sidenote: This se'if was recently studied by Arukh haShulchan Yomi. If you want to join us learning AhS Yomi, see the tools -- calendar, text, RYGB's YouTube playlist -- at http://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi ! AhS Yomi covers OC and the applicable portions of YD. (From egg spots to aveilus.) On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:41:23PM +0200, wolberg via Avodah wrote: >> And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the Shema and >> Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. >> And so paskened the Geonei Olam for about [the last] eighty years. And >> this is the essential halocha." ... > 1. Surely the use of Yiddish translations was very common and accepted? For women, yes. In fact, there is a script called Vaibrteitch because translations were in general considered for women. ("Women's Translation". "Teitch" evolved from the language name "Deutch".) Vaibrteitch is different than Rashi script. See examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaybertaytsh > 2. Is this a response to the Reform use of German translations? Likely. That bit about how they used to know Hebrew better is suspiciously post-facto sounding. Maybe when translating to another Semitic language, or to Greek using a millenia old tradition of Hebrew to Greek equivalences, we could have done better than we can to English. However, 600 years ago, translating to German, French or Spanish... No matter how well you know Hebrew, there is simply no close parallel to translate words to. A personal favorite when teaching Mussar is "yir'ah". Yir'ah is a range from awe to fear. Maybe the closest is "awareness of the magnitude of what you're facing" -- whether with admiration (awe) or thinking about risk (fear) or in another way. But because we are thinking "awe or fear" instead of a single concept, we cannot think about the middah of yir'as Shamayim in a fully authentic way. It's not two thing with an "or", or with a second thought about how they're related. It's a single territory that should be part of our gut's language about how we're feeling at a given point in time. In any case, it is true that real translation is impossible. I would faster *guess* that a machloqes about how close a translation may be got closed because the response to Reform forced our hand to choose one shitah over the other. > 3. While the translation of the Shema might be problematic, translation > of shemoneh esrei and brochas is surely not the same issue? Well, we cannot translation "Barukh Atah Hashem", at least not "barukh" or "Hashem" in any precise way. So, maybe not. I am not sure people really know what they mean when they say "blessed". But what is Barukh? - Source of increase - Maximally increased - May You -- in the form of the expression of Your Will in this world -- be incresed - An intentional ambiguity of all of the above? And sheim havayah pronounced as Adnus... - The Atemporal - The All-Compassionate - The Transcendent - The L-rd of All Etc... I would faster think the baqashos would be okay more than berakhos in general. Or maybe the body of the berakhah until the chasimah. As long as the translation is close enough so that it opens and wraps up with me'ein hachasimah. But lemaaseh, the AhS says that's not what "we hold". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. http://www.aishdas.org/asp - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:50:27 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Torah Musings] Why Did the Holocaust Happen Message-ID: <20200911175027.GA23887@aishdas.org> A survey by R Gil Student. https://www.torahmusings.com/2020/09/why-did-the-holocaust-happen/ (And a couple of the comments on his post.) :-)BBii! -Micha Torah Musing Why Did the Holocaust Happen? Posted by: Gil Student Posts Sep 7, 2020 As I reviewed the weekly Torah reading for this past Shabbos, which includes the tochekhah (Deut. 28), I was taken back to my teenage years, reading it one Saturday or Sunday afternoon and seeing Jewish history in it. To a non-religious Jewish teenager in the 1980's who grew up among survivors, the question of God in the Holocaust was not a faith issue that could be ignored. Reading the biblical text with minimal commentary (I think I used S.L. Gordon's secular commentary), I saw a prophecy that sin would lead to the kind of inhuman devastation seen in the Holocaust, a prediction that was fulfilled thousands of years later. To me, the Holocaust was not an impediment to faith but a convincing proof of Judaism's truth claims. Not everyone sees it that way. Many are offended by the very claim that the Holocaust was a divine punishment, although often due to objections that miss important discussions in traditional Jewish literature which we will mention briefly below. The issues are so sensitive, and during the 1970's and 1980's in particular the denominational conflicts were so strong, that unnecessarily forceful rhetoric turned an issue of faith into a weapon. In my opinion, a legitimate theological view has been dismissed due to heightened sensitivities and denominational politics. I. Five Approaches to the Holocaust Modern Orthodoxy has developed two main theologies of the Holocaust: 1) Hester Panim - God hid His face, turned away, and let mankind unleash wanton violence. R. Norman Lamm takes this approach in his [51]"The Face of God: Thoughts of the Holocaust". It is important to note that God hides His face (Deut. 31:17) due to Jewish sins (ibid., 16). (Some claim that brief mentions of hester panim by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik in his Kol Dodi Dofek constitute his adoption of this approach, but see R. Reuven Ziegler, Majesty and Humility, p. 277 n. 4, where he dismisses this interpretation.) 2) Free Will - God allows mankind the free will to sin, which includes the ability to murder and torture others. R. Eliezer Berkovits advocates this approach in his Faith After the Holocaust. The alternative approaches generally discussed are: 3) Anti-Zionism - The Satmar Rebbe's argument that Zionism led to the Holocaust, in his [52]Al Ha-Ge'ulah Ve-Al Ha-Temurah. 4) Zionism - The Religious Zionist argument that the Holocaust paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel. This view is attributed to R. Zvi Yehudah Kook (see Aviezer Ravitzky, Messianism, Zionism and Jewish Religious Radicalism, pp. 126-128). 5) Secularization - R. Avigdor Miller popularized the view that the assimilation and secularization of Jews in the 150 years prior to the Holocaust resulted in this punishment. R. Norman Lamm quotes this from R. Miller's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 278-279) and you can find quotes on the subject by searching [53]TorasAvigdor.org for the word "Holocaust". (A reader informed me that R. Miller has a book on the subject was posthumously published -- [54]A Divine Madness: Rabbi Avigdor Miller's Defense of Hashem in the Matter of the Holocaust.) II. The Slabodka Holocaust Theology I would like to explore here the approach of a Holocaust victim, Rav Avraham Grodzinski, the mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva who perished in 1944. I will be blending in another important view of Rav Grodzinski, along with his son-in-law Rav Shlomo Wolbe's presentation of Rav Grodzinski's approach in Rav Wolbe's (anonymously published) book of outreach speeches given in the wake of the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars (originally published as Bein Sheshes Le-Asor, later republished as Olam Ha-Yedidus). Rav Grodzinski's approach is most similar to that of Rav Miller, which is not surprising since the latter studied in the Slabodka yeshiva. However, I am not sure that Rav Miller developed it in the same way as Rav Grodzinski and he certainly did not present it in the same sensitive way as Rav Wolbe. [55]Rav Avraham Grodzinski succeeded Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel ("The Alter") as mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva, when the latter moved to Israel and established a branch of the yeshiva in Chevron. Rav Grodzinski (a brother-in-law of Rav Ya'akov Kamenetsky) stayed in Europe to the end, suffering a martyr's death in the Kovno Ghetto in 1944. He sent his writings to his students in Israel, who together with [56]his surviving sons published them in 1963 as Toras Avraham, a brilliant book of profound Mussar thought presented in the style of Talmudic thinking. [57]Rav Shlomo Wolbe first published Bein Sheshes Le-Asor anonymously in 1975, although it is clearly in his style and was posthumously republished by the foundation to publish his writings. The book consists mainly of his outreach lectures throughout Israel, spurred by the renewed interest in Israel awakened by the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War. The chapter on the Holocaust, however, was prepared for a class at the Bais Ya'akov of Jerusalem (commonly known as BJJ). I assume that Rav Wolbe included this chapter because he believes that this issue is important to those seeking to grow in faith. Rav Wolbe begins with a story emphasizing the importance of finding meaning in your suffering. It is obvious, he says, that we must help others by alleviating their suffering in any way possible. However, faith teaches us that there is meaning in suffering, a lesson to be learned. Rav Wolbe continues that even when God hides His face from us, there are no accidents. Therefore we must examine our lives to see what God wants from us. This is true not just for individuals but for nations as a whole. Throughout, Rav Wolbe quotes mainly biblical verses to prove his points, although I can think of many Talmudic passages that would do likewise. The believer is strengthened from the fact that destruction and suffering do not occur by happenstance but rather come guided by divine providence after ample warning. The traditional Jewish texts of the Bible, Talmud and Midrash warn us of the horrific consequences of sin. Rav Wolbe highlights in particular the language of the Gemara (Kesubos 111a), while sidestepping the specific Talmudic context, of "If not, I (God) will abandon your flesh like the gazelles and like the hinds of the field." Due to sin, Jewish flesh will be hunted like animals. Nobody, Rav Wolbe continues, is allowed to decide for what reason the Holocaust happened to us unless he personally suffered himself. Only a victim can conduct this examination of the generation. As we will later see, Rav Grodzinski did not necessarily agree with this. Perhaps Rav Wolbe set this condition for rhetorical purposes. Regardless, with that introduction, Rav Wolbe then invokes Rav Grodzinski's Holocaust theology. III. Suffering and Sins The introduction to Toras Avraham (1978 second edition, p. 17) describes how Rav Grodzinski discussed at length with his students in the Kovno Ghetto the spiritual causes of the Holocaust. He listed twelve primary sins, or areas where we were lacking, and exhorted them to strengthen the Jewish people in these areas if they survived the war. Rav Grodzinski wrote all these talks down but the writings were lost in the war. [58]Rav Mordechai Zuckerman survived and recorded the twelve lackings from memory. They are: 1) Faith 2) Shabbos observance 3) Family purity 4) Kosher food 5) Charging interest 6) Torah education of children 7) Wasting time that could be used for Torah study 8) Loving your fellow Jew 9) Lovingkindness (chesed) 10) Making do with less (histapkus) 11) Trust in God 12) The land of Israel (I don't know what this means in this context). I do not know if Rav Grodzinski applied Talmudic statements to his contemporary events, such as "seven punishments come to the world due to seven sins" (Avos 5:8), or if he looked at specific types of suffering and found the "measure for measure" in them, or a combination of both methods or something else. Because his writings were lost, we lack insight into his specific methodology. Regardless, I appreciate his general approach, as described below, and recognize that he used it to reach specific conclusions, which I find worthy as areas to strengthen ourselves. Rav Wolbe adds to the above list the general secularization of the Jewish people that began with Emancipation and continued with the Jewish Enlightenment. This was accompanied by widespread abandonment of Jewish faith and practice. Historically, he claims, every period of "enlightenment" has ended with Jewish tragedy. The Holocaust continues that historical cycle. I believe that Rav Grodzinski's Holocaust theology is intimately connected with his theology of suffering. In a series of lectures in late 1936 and early 1937, Rav Grodzinski explored the unique value of suffering to the religious personality. It might be worthwhile noting that since childhood, Rav Grodzinski suffered great physical pain that he overcame through sheer force of personality. Rav Grodzinski begins by pointing out what we lost as a nation and as individuals by the cessation of prophecy (roughly) after the destruction of the First Temple. The prophets informed us of our sins, directed us to the proper behavior, guided us to spiritual recovery. When prophecy ceased, we lost that guidance but were not left without any religious compass. Suffering shows us where we must focus. God punishes us measure for measure. Therefore, we can look at our suffering, our punishment, as a guide for where we need to improve our behavior. To some degree, suffering is more effective than prophecy. "The removal of Achashverosh's ring (for the sealing of Haman's decree) was more effective than the forty-eight prophets and the seven prophetesses who prophesied on behalf of the Jewish people. They all were unable to bring the Jewish people to repentance, but the removal of Achashverosh's ring brought them to repentance" (Megillah 14a). Additionally, suffering empowers you to find your own path to redemption, without the need for a third party, a prophet. Suffering not only directs you to improve but encourages you, offers you the incentive of freedom from suffering. Rav Grodzinski adds (p. 54) that suffering guides not only the sinners but others, as well. When we see someone suffering and understand the sin that caused it, we learn a very persuasive lesson about what behavior we should avoid. This is true also about the educational value of nations making flawed decisions that seal their fate. The suffering of nations teaches us what national mistakes to avoid (cf. Zephaniah 3:6-7). In Rav Grodzinski's view, a wise and learned person, steeped in Talmud and Midrash, can examine the suffering of the Holocaust to identify its underlying spiritual causes and learn from them. After conducting a careful examination, Rav Grodzinski reached his conclusions (unfortunately, his thought process was recorded in writing but lost) and beseeched his students to work to fix these spiritual problems. IV. Common Objections 1) Rav Wolbe concludes with a common question: Why did righteous people suffer in the Holocaust? He quotes Rav Grodzinski as explaining that the more righteous someone is, the harsher he is judged. R. Akiva suffered from Roman torture and murder because, we are told, "this intention arose before" God (Menachos 29b). What is that intention? Rashi (Gen. 1:1) says, "At first God intended to create the world under the attribute of strict justice, but He realized that the world could not thus endure and therefore gave priority to mercy combined with justice." R. Akiva and the other righteous individuals are judged with the initial intent, pure justice. Even without Rav Wolbe's interpretation of this passage, we see elsewhere that the righteous are judged by a hairbreadth (Yevamos 121b), meaning that what for others constitutes a minor infraction for someone righteous is a big sin. Additionally, once God sends a punishment to a group (city, country, nation), that punishment applies to everyone whether righteous or wicked (Bava Kamma 60a). That is part of being a people -- our fates are connected. In fact, the Gemara (Shabbos 55a) says that when God punishes the Jewish people, He starts with the most righteous. 2) Were the people killed in the Holocaust guilty? - Even though no one can claim to be free from guilt, it is hard to imagine that anyone committed a sin so heinous as to deserve the horrors of the Holocaust. However, a sin committed by many is worse than a sin committed by an individual. Additionally, God is patient and allows time -- generations -- for the Jewish people to return before punishing us. When the punishment arrives, it is not just for that generation but for the previous generations as well (Ex. 20:5; Or Ha-Chaim, ad loc.). The generation of the Holocaust lived at the end of God's long wait for a return that never arrived. We do not stand in judgement of those who died or suffered in the Holocaust, nor do we say that they are more deserving than people before or after them. According to this understanding, they were individuals who lived at a time in history when the Jewish people was punished for its collective sins over many generations, for its long drift away from traditional Jewish observance. 3) Were the Nazis right to kill Jews? - This question is natural but odd. Natural because it emerges from the overall approach but odd because it has been discussed for centuries. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Teshuvah 6:5) asks why Pharaoh and the Egyptians were punished for enslaving the Jews when it was part of God's plan as told to Avraham (Gen. 15:13). Rambam answers that someone was destined to enslave the Jews but the Egyptians were guilty for being the ones to do it and therefore suffered ten plagues and drowning at the sea (see also Ramban, Gen. 15:14; I discuss it [59]here). May the Nazis suffer a hundred times ten plagues for their part in the Holocaust. None of this detracts from God's role in punishing the Jewish people through the guilty Egyptian hands. 4) What value is there in looking for other people's sins? - As discussed above, Rav Grodzinski sees value in learning what to fix. If we do not learn the spiritual lessons of history, we are condemned to repeat them. Additionally, Ramban (Sha'ar Ha-Gemul in Kisvei Ha-Ramban, vol. 2 p. 281; I discuss it [60]here) offers four reasons to engage in theodicy, even if ultimately you cannot fully understand God's ways. First, we benefit from gaining a better understanding of God's ways. More wisdom is good. Metaphysical knowledge, understanding God's actions, is always positive. Second, studying the ways in which God rewards and punishes people strengthens our belief. Our continuous exploration of God's ways reinforces within us His existence and His providence. Our greater understanding affords us confidence that explanations exist to even what we do not understand. Additionally, concludes Ramban, the obligations to fear and love God include a requirement to accept His judgment, to explain and justify God's decisions. This is a mitzvah of tziduk ha-din. 4) Is it sacrilegious to try to understand God's justice? - No, it is a mitzvah, as per the previous point. It also is not insulting to speak of punishment due to sins. When the Shakh writes about the Chmelnitzki massacres, he refers to what happened to us "due to our sins." When the Ra'avan writes about the First Crusade ([61]Kuntres Gezeiras Tatn"u), he specifically invokes the tokhecha, saying that they experienced all of the biblical curses. This is a strain of, if not the dominant strain in, traditional Judaism. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Ta'aniyos 1:3) calls it cruelty to fail to look for the sins that led to divine punishment. 5) Can anyone know God's reasons absent prophecy? - Rav Yitzchak Hutner ("Holocaust" -- A Study of the Term, and the Epoch it is Meant to Describe" in [62]Jewish Observer, October 1977, p. 9) writes: "One would have to be a navi or Tanna (a prophet or Talmudic sage) to claim knowledge of the specific reasons for what befell us; anyone on a lesser plane claiming to do so tramples in vain upon the bodies of the kedoshim who died Al Kiddush Hashem [as holy martyrs] and misuses the power to interpret and understand Jewish history." On the other hand, this same Rav Hutner gave an approbation to Rav Wolbe's book quoted above. Furthermore, it seems that Rav Grodzinski, himself a holy martyr, felt his method of analyzing suffering serves the function of prophecy in today's age. 6) Why does this usually ring so hollow? - When the Holocaust is discussed without sensitivity and empathy, the proposed explanations sound shallow and offensive. In my opinion, that is why Rav Wolbe began with a long introduction and invoked the conclusions of a Holocaust victim, Rav Grodzinski. Furthermore, many of the people offering explanations today either are, or sound like or are portrayed by the media as being, self-righteous fools. It is hard to take seriously someone whose analysis is shallow and only validates his regular message. If your answer to everything is female immodesty, you lack credibility to offer a thoughtful and nuanced answer. Rav Grodzinski does not face this challenge but some people may unfairly associate him with others who suffer that problem. There may be other reasons that this approach often rings hollow but these should suffice for our purposes. Personally, I benefited from this tokhecha approach which I intuited as a non-religious teenager. I am not certain which sins caused the Holocaust but I am open to honest, sensitive speculation as a way of learning from history, which I believe is that in which Rav Grodzinski and Rav Wolbe engaged. If this approach had been deemed theologically unacceptable, despite its impeccable pedigree, I don't know if I would be religious today. In my opinion, it is a shame to remove this approach from our theological toolbox due to politics and rhetoric from decades ago. ... 3 comments 1. Kovner Sep 8, 20 at 6:44 am You missed out on one more important approach. Read the classic introduction to Zichron Kodosh written by the author of Nesivos Sholom - RSN Barzovsky zt"l. The sefer was published once, and never reprinted. Also, the Toras Avrohom was published by a son - not sons - of RAG. Only one son did not perish. ... 3. Kovner Sep 9, 20 at 7:05 pm I'm not skilled to do so accurately and faithfully. Never the less, I'll venture to say that the central point is that it's all part of Hashem's Grand Plan of human history, and is beyond our comprehension. And therefore the most appropriate response is "Vayidom Aharon"... ... Copyright 2020 All rights reserved References 51. https://merrimackvalleyhavurah.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/the-face-of-god-thoughts-on-the-holocaust/ 52. http://www.mysatmar.com/docs/shite_hakdoshe/ 53. https://torasavigdor.org/ 54. https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Madness-Avigdor-Millers-Holocaust/dp/B00EF68V9C 55. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Grodzinski 56. https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/54188/harav-yitzchok-grodzinsky-recalls-the-last-moments-of-hagon-rav-elchonon-wasserman-hyd-before-his-murder.html 57. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Wolbe 58. https://www.jdn.co.il/breakingnews/1230669/ 59. https://www.torahmusings.com/2016/05/were-the-egyptians-right/ 60. https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/10/why-theodicy/ 61. https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34838&st=&pgnum=2&hilite= 62. https://agudah.org/the-jewish-observer-vol-12-no-8-october-1977chesvan-5738/ From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Sat Sep 12 10:18:12 2020 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 17:18:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Has anyone seen litereature about the following Issues when Davening BiYehidut (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. (2) If one says the piyut of the Avoda after his private Musaf shmoneh Esrei, can he fall korim, what about Aleinu Shanah Tovah, Beri'ah u-metukah! Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Sep 13 20:36:29 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2020 23:36:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 Message-ID: . asked several questions about Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4, who wrote: > And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the > Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. Spoiler alert: I have several problems with this Aruch Hashulchan, and I suspect that (as R' Wolberg suspects), the AhS had ulterior reasons for writing this (such as the inroads that Reform was making via their translations) and could not have really meant it l'halacha. In any case, there are other poskim who do allow translations. I will begin by giving my own translation of this section of AhS, so that if anyone disagrees with my understanding of what he said, they can bring it to my attention. I will break it into several numbered pieces for easier reference. >>> 1) Know that this [halacha] that Krias Shema and Tefilla may be said in any language - this is certainly when one translates really the entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh into the other language. For otherwise, it would not constitute Shema and Tefilla. 2) According to that, this law does not apply except in the time of the Mishna and Gemara, for they knew our language well, and they were able to translate it. 3) But now, it is well-known that we have a number of uncertainties in explaining the words, and the commentators are divided about it. For example, how do we translate "totafos"? Similarly, the pasuk "Shema Yisrael" has various explanations even of its simple meaning. Likewise in the section about tzitzis, some explain it [the word "tzitzis"] in the sense of "looking" [from the root tzadi yud tzadi], and some explain it as "going" [from yud tzadi aleph]. Same for the word "p'sil" and many [other words] like it. 4) Behold, the essential Name of Havay' - we don't know how to translate it correctly! There are those who translate it as Nitzchi [Eternal], and some translate it as Kol-Yachol [Almighty], and there is no translation at all for "Was and Is and Will Be", which is the real Name Havay', so they equate the translation of the Name Havay' with the Name Elokim. 5) [Here he says something about two very different ways of translating "V'chara af", but I don't understand what he is saying.] 6) And therefore, nowadays it is forbidden to recite Krias Shema or Tefilla or any brachos except in Lashon Hakodesh, and so have the Geonei Olam paskened for about eighty years now, and this is the bottom-line halacha. >>> The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it? He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists? According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty AND Was/Is/WillBe? In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3: 1) It seems in my humble opinion that there is an established halacha by which one can get out of any questionable bracha acharona. For example, one is unsure if he said a bracha acharona or not. Or if he *needs* to make a bracha acharona or not. There is a way to extricate himself from this safek. 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167. 3) If so, one can say "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, boray nefashos etc. ..." If he was obligated in this bracha, then he is yotzay with this. And if he didn't need this bracha, then he has *not* uttered the Name of Heaven in vain, because there is no mention of the Name at all. Look, you can say "Rachamana" a hundred times! 4) Or similar things with other brachos. You should think in your heart that if you need the bracha then it is [being said] for the sake of a bracha; and if not, then it's just talking. 5) I have done this myself several times when drinking hot drinks. The most obvious thing from this section is that the Aruch Hashulchan personally believes that a bracha CAN be said in Aramaic. You might respond that he makes an exception for Aramaic, which is arguably a Lashon Hakodesh. But look again at the AhS's requirements for an adequate translation of Hashem's Name - which is an absolute necessity when saying a bracha - and I don't think "Rachamana" conveys any sense of "Was and Is and Will Be". Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude someone from a partial translation. For example, one could translate most of the words, and leave the difficult words untranslated, which is almost exactly how ArtScroll handles the cited case of "totafos": "Bind them as a sign upon your arm and let them be tefillin between your eyes." If I'm understanding Siman 62 correctly, the AhS wants translation to be all-or-nothing, and since all is not possible, he feels justified in banning all translations. But in Siman 202, a partial translation is exactly what he is doing, by translating the initial words of the bracha, and then continuing with the regular Hebrew text. By the way, it seems that Rav Moshe Feinstein agrees that a translation must be all-or-nothing. See Igros Moshe OC 4:40:27, which is two paragraphs. In the first paragraph, he rejects the AhS's suggestion of using Brich Rachamana to get out of problems, precisely because you can't mix languages in that manner. (It's not at all clear to me why we're not allowed to mix languages, but it is very clear that Rav Moshe rejects it.) In the second paragraph he explains that even if one would say the entire bracha in Aramaic, that too would not resolve a safek bracha problem, because whereas the AhS had no compunctions against saying Rachamana a hundred times, *we* are noheg to avoid saying the Name in vain even when translated. As an aside, there are several teshuvos in which Rav Moshe explains his views on how to translate Hashem's Name for brachos in other languages. See for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:272, where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana, "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ... And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe, whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include concepts like "Was and Is and Will Be". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Sep 14 05:43:25 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:43:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. What is the minimum amount of shofar blowing that one is required to hear? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. In three different places the Torah commands us to blow shofar in the month of Tishrei: Twice in relation to Rosh Hashanah, and once in reference to Yom Kippur (Yovel ? Jubilee). The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 34a) connects the three verses and derives that each time the shofar is blown, it must be blown three times. The Gemara also proves that every blowing of the shofar actually consists of three parts: A Tekiah (a long blow), followed by a Teruah (a broken blow), followed by a Tekiah. This makes for a total of nine blows. The mitzvah is to blow the shofar nine times following this pattern. Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah However, because the Gemara records a disagreement as to the sound of the Teruah, we blow three variations. This amounts to 30 blows. 3X ? Tekiah ? Shevarim Teruah ? Tekiah=(12) 3X ? Tekiah ? Shevarim? Tekiah=(9) 3X ? Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah=(9) This is the minimum amount of shofar blows that one should hear to fulfill their obligation. If even this is too much, at the very least one should make sure to hear at least ten blasts. (See Mishnah Berurah 586:22 & 600:7). Tekiah ? Shevarim Teruah ? Tekiah=(4) Tekiah ? Shevarim ? Tekiah=(3) Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah=(3) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 18:29:14 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 21:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur Message-ID: . R' Aryeh Frimer asked: > Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when > Davening BiYehidut > (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but > perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la > Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head: Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice. Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 06:38:38 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:38:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Q. Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 565:5) writes that the "Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim" > (thirteen attributes of mercy, Shemos 34:6-7) may not be recited unless there is a > minyan. When these pesukim are recited in the context of prayer, they have the > elevated status of a "davar she'bikedusha," like Kaddish or Kedusha, that may only > be said in the presence of a minyan. I actually traced this back to its source - a new obsession of mine. It's a Tur in 565 (Hil. Ta'anis). "Rav Nosson writes there's no Minhag for an individual to say the 13 attributes." (Excuse the stilted word-for-word translation). The Tur then seems to make it clear that he's quoting this to ensure people don't find this Rav Nosson and pasken like it: "I don't know what the problem is since it's like saying Psukim, since the Chachamim only say (not to say w/o a Minyan) a Dovor Shebikdusha like Kaddish, Kedusha and Borchu" (Who is this Rav Nosson? The only Rishon I could find by this name was the Oruch.) The Darkei Moshe injects (on Rav Nosson's statement) saying "our Minhag is (for individuals) to say it, but not during the Shmoneh Esre. The Mahr"iv quoting the O"Z says individuals should not say Selichos." (I.e. they used to say Selichos on Ta'anis during Chazoras haShatz. Actually, we Yekkes still do.) See it online at https://www.sefaria.org.il/Tur%2C_Orach_Chaim.565.1?with=Darchei%20Moshe - for those who can see the Hebrew: , ???? ???? ?????:??:? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?"? ???? [?] ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???: [?] ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????"? ??? ?"? ???? ????? ???? ?????? So the Tur and the Darkei Moshe both agree that an individual can say the "Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim". The dissenting opinion says to skip Selichos altogether. >From there it's all downhill. The common denominator being that all Nosie Keilim seem to pasken like Rav Nosson and try to find workarounds. I find this fascinating. I wonder if the Tur now regrets ever mentioning this opinion. :-) Note that this is all mentioned in Hil. Ta'anis. In 581 where they discuss Selichot during Elul, they ignore this topic completely. KVT - Danny From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Sep 16 10:42:32 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:42:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] practical and detailed shir for Baalei tokaya and makri Message-ID: <089901d68c50$c22d7680$46886380$@touchlogic.com> Very good. Starts basic, but gets better.. >From Rabbi Mordechai Scheiner, rosh Kollel Ohr Yosef - toronto https://zoom.us/rec/share/xyvl_GE2lRo5GmE02A0XVqL4TEp3Kq4RqYfPZ4zAbezsR4D1c7G8LaIToB8dxYbe.0vgzJDhv9dDlViCP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 13:40:15 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:40:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <2110840790.2504917.1600178620157@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20200914185208.GC25700@aishdas.org> <2110840790.2504917.1600178620157@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20200917204015.GA749@aishdas.org> Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT: > Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim > we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is > problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out sifrei > Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos given to > 12 year olds, etc... > This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked how > we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to celebrate a > siyum that itself is iffy. > But when I wrote that, few of us really thought that Israel would be > closing down for the chagim, and that ever minute of shul in nearly all > of chu"l is increasing medical risk. So now we're talking about invoking > heteirim to party at the peril of the medically fragile in the community. > I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the > bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this year's > leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a Simchas > Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can anyone argue > for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that psychological need for > the majority of people? On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 2:03pm GMT, R Harry Maryles replied on Areivim: > It's true that most Shuls had a pretty big gap in their weekly Kriyas > HaTorah and that many Parshios were missed. But some Shuls hae made them > up. In a few cases no Parshios were missed. For example in my son's > neighborhood of Ramat bet Shemesh which is over 90% observant, my son > did KhT every Shabbos from his balcony with a Minyan made of of all of > his neighbors within earshot. (Don't know how he arrived at calling this > Teffilah B'Tzibur, but that was his Beshas Ha'dechak Psak.) > IIUC, Doing Hakafos on ST is a Minahg of the Tzibur, not the Yachid. > It is based on what the Klal as a whole does. The celebration of > completing yearly cycle with Hakafos is therefore appropriate this year > just like every year. But only along the lines I suggested because of > the pandemic. There are cases where every parashah was leined beause the members of the minyan can't disband anyway -- like in a nursing home or on an army base. But I fear you presented a false dichotomy. Yes, leining and therefore the siyum on leining we celebrate on ST are about the tzibur. But I wouldn't assume that means the global tzibur. After all, there was even a time when annual leining wasn't a universal norm. I had presented a third option, because I had assumed a neighorhood tzibbur. With all the modern complications now that most communities have shenei batei din ba'ir, as we put it WRT the tzibbur accepting Shabbos. But whether your town, your shul, or something else, that I didn't have a position on. So as I saw it, if no minyan in town leined the whole seifer Torah betzibbur, how is that community making a siyum? Shouldn't the shul making the party include at least person completing the text being mesayeim? In any case, there are at least those three possibilities, and we only agree on ruling out the first one, the yachid. But my point on Areivim, just like the point I made here to begin with, was more about most of the minhagim for celebrating Simchas Torah are on the defensive. We lein at night. (At least most of us do.) We take out more sifrei Torah than we read from. We give way too many people aliyos. We are relying on heteirim on a slew of dinim about kavod ST and qeri'as haTorah. We need a certain level of justification for it. We don't have to just say that ST celebrates someone else's completion of the Torah -- we need to be able to argue that's true strongly enough to justify those heteirim. Or, that we need ST for our mental health strongly enough to qualify as justification. Which is an approach I am more sympathetic to than saying I am dancing in my shul with a seifer Torah to celebrate the men of Nachal Yehudah (eg) and in the senior living facilities a couple of miles outside our eiruv at Daughter of Miryam completing a cycle of leining. Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries http://www.aishdas.org/asp are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 18 05:05:52 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:05:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Is one permitted to fast on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. One is not permitted to fast on Rosh Hashanah because Rosh Hashanah is a Yom Tov. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (OC 597:1) rules that one must eat, drink and rejoice on Rosh Hashanah. Nonetheless, unlike other Yomim Tovim, one should not overindulge, lest the solemn nature of the day will be obscured. However, there were Rishonim who held that it is permissible to fast during the daytime because Rosh Hashanah is a day of teshuva. Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l said that his great-grandfather, the Beis HaLevi, would fast both days. In fact, there were those who would fast even on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah because they considered the importance of teshuva on this day to be on the level of pikuach nefesh (life threatening), which overrides the requirement to eat a Shabbos seuda. Although in practice we follow the Shulchan Aruch and do not fast on Rosh Hashanah, the Mishnah Berurah (584:5) makes a distinction between Rosh Hashanah which falls on Shabbos, and Rosh Hashanah which falls on a weekday, as follows: When Rosh Hashanah falls on a weekday, we are permitted to extend the davening into the afternoon, while if Rosh Hashanah is on Shabbos, we are required to finish davening before chatzos (halachic midday) so as not to fast past the morning. As such, if one expects their shul to finish davening on Shabbos after chatzos, it is best to drink a tea or coffee in the morning before going to shul, to avoid fasting inappropriately on Shabbos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 18 05:17:03 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:17:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Laws & Customs: Month of Tishrei during the Corona period Message-ID: For those in quarantine, davening by themselves or in outside Minyanim Please see https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/groupsioattachments/14569/76906693/102/0?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJECNKOVMCCU3ATNQ&Expires=1600431735&Signature=d1788QfnWQyWHF1xjnl7Zn59EJg%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3D%22Tishrei+During+Corona.pdf%22 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Mon Sep 21 05:50:14 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 13:50:14 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? Message-ID: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT: > Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim > we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is > problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out > sifrei Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos > given to > 12 year olds, etc... BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So while it might be that the Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah out). Note that that also means that the siyum for the year, even in a normal year, is not complete (or about to be completed) when the sifrei Torah are taken out at night, as the first hakafos take place (at latest) on the night of Simchat Torah, and yet the finishing of the yearly reading only occurs the next day. Note the reason why I say at latest is because many Sephardim (although not all) have the custom of doing seven sets of seven hakafot which mean they do hakafot on Shmini Atzeret as well (three sets on Shmini Atzeret, to correspond with the three services, three sets on Simchat Torah, to correspond with the three services, and one after Simchat Torah). > This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked > how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to > celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy. There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah, something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah. Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations and to call to others to make a feast. *And further it is the custom* in our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every place according to its custom. *And further we are accustomed* to circle with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with the lulav *and all is because of joy* *Further we are accustomed* to call all the lads to the sefer Torah, ... and in every place according to their custom. *Further we are accustomed* to finish the Torah even with a child oleh..." That is, while you appear to be saying that *because* we make a siyum on the Torah *therefore* we do all these other halachically iffy customs, even the Rema does not say this. To the extent he gives a reason, it is "because of joy", and all the customs are as a result of *that* category. Which makes sense, because making a siyum justifies a seudah being considered a seudas mitzvah (and may justify the name of Simchas Torah, instead of second day Shmini Atzeret), and there are references in the gemara that seem to justify the making of a feast for a siyum, although the derivation is not really that straightforward, nowhere does it allow any of the other behaviour that might be Halachically iffy. On the other hand, simcha is a mitzvah d'orisa on yom tov, and indeed according to Sukkah 48a " It was taught in a braita: [Devarim 16:16] "and it will be completely joyous" this is to include the night of the last day of Yom Tov [lelei yom tov acharon]" Now of course, that is referring in the Torah to Shmini Artzeret, and it is interesting that in chutz l'aretz, we seem to have taken the especially joyous obligation of that d'orisa mitzvah, and attached it to what is the night of yom tov achron for us, which in fact is only minhag avosaynu b'yadanu. But be that as it may, it seems to me that, as the Rema says, the justification for all of these minhagim is simchas yom tov, and particularly the extra simcha of the final days of yom tov, and that they are independent of one another, so that the aspects related to making a siyum on the Torah are independent of taking the sifrei Torah out, and of doing the hakafos, and of singing and dancing. And if anything, the minhag of having a siyum on completing a full yearly reading of the Torah could perhaps be seen as being caused by the obligation to create extra joy on Shmini Atzeret/Simchas Torah, and not the other way around. We have arranged our schedules so that we have the joy of completely the Torah on this day, as Torah learning is in and of itself a form of joy (see eg the introduction to the Eglei Tal), so we arrange them to coincide. > I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the > bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this > year's leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a > Simchas Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can > anyone argue for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that > psychological need for the majority of people? But again, this assumes that all the minhagim on Simchas Torah are a direct result of the siyum, which I do not believe is the case. It is important to have Simchas Yom Tov, and to do what we can to maximise simchas Yom Tov, and if the siyum part is not possible, but the other parts are, then the other parts should be done. <> And the classic justification for these heterim is that the aseh of simcha is docheh, as per the Rema. However, because we are taking about simcha that is required by the Torah, it is linked to and part and parcel with simcha with the Torah - without the Torah there would be no obligation of such simcha, so simcha that is antithetical to the Torah, ie does not encompass kavod haTorah, is not justified. Which is why I am not even convinced that it is a tzibbur versus yachid thing. Would there be a problem if a Rav, who happened to live above the shul, took out the sefrei Torah and did hakafos with them with his family around an empty shul, because he was restricted by Covid requirements to his bubble, which did not contain a minyan? I'm not sure there would. There are potential issues with leining, and even more so with making birchas haTorah on such layning, but do we consider hakafos as a dvar shebekedusha that absolutely has to have a minyan? It is post gemara, so it is not so clear it can be a dvar shebekedusha, which might need to have been instituted by the Anshei Knesset Hagadola or at least not to be post Ravina and Rav Ashi (that might also turn on whether you follow the Aruch haShulchan and the Rokach, who hold that kaddish was instituted by the Anshei Knesset HaGadola, and that is what justifies its status as a dvar shebekedusha, or whether you follow the Shibbolei Ha-Leket and the teshuvas HaGeonim which seem to suggest that the whole institution of kaddish within prayer was instituted by the Geonim (and if so, whether a takana of the Geonim is and remains binding or it does not)). <> But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as something of an obligation of the tzibbur (the tzibbur would seem to be needed in order to make sure that we are making the widow happy). So to the extent that it is dependent upon simcha, then that obligation remains, even if the minhagim of the tzibbur, ie the way the tzibbur traditionally performs such simcha, might not be possible at the present time, and hence is not an obligation. -Micha Gmar Tov Chana From doniels at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 03:16:13 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:16:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur Message-ID: . R' Aryeh Frimer asked: > Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when > Davening BiYehidut > (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but > perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la > Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. R' Akiva Miller answered: > No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head: > Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it > certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice. > Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is > mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there. In a nutshell, you can see it here on Sefaria: https://tinyurl.com/y2qgtuyx It's a Mishna in Nedirim 3:1, discussed in Talmud 23a, codified in Yoreh De'a 211 to which the Ba'er Heitev decides that as long as one said it loud enough to be heard to one's own ears, it's valid. None of the commentators along the way mention publicity. The only issue they have is "Devorim She'B'Leiv" if it's whispered or thought. Along the way I learnt: You can say it ("just kidding about the Neder stuff") any time. Those who hold you don't have to say it right before making the Neder, don't give it an expiration date - IOW once a lifetime should be sufficient. Bottom line: If it works, you can chant the "futuristic" Kol Nidrei to yourself in an undertone. CLOR. Gmar Chasima Tova - Danny, not a Rabbi by any stretch of imagination. From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Sep 17 08:56:27 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:56:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Consumer Daf HaKashrus - Spices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I normally do not send out messages with attachments, but I could not locate this online. [See for attached PDF. -micha] From the pdf file > This article is an in-depth look at a specific category of vegetables: > spices. Spices refer to aromatic vegetable products used to season or > flavor foods. Less than 2% of food consumed in the United States are > spices, but what a difference that 2% makes! Without spices, all food > would be bland and unappetizing. > As mentioned, there are many spices exported by Israel, which create a > whole host of potential kashrus issues. All uncertified Israeli spices > present serious kashrus challenges in the form of tevel and shemitah. A > Mashgiach visiting a spice plant must be on the lookout for this. Because > of the aromatic and fragrant nature of spices, these spices will not > be batel in a mixture, as they are avida l'taama, added to mixtures > for taste, and anything which is added to a mixture for taste does not > become batel. This halachah is paskened by Rema in Yoreh Deah 98:8, > from the Gemara (Beitza 38b, Chulin 6a). See the attachment for much more. From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Sep 22 05:50:20 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:50:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Cheerios and Pas Yisroel Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Can one eat Cheerios during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva (ten days from Rosh Hashana to Yom Kippur) or Shabbos and Yom Tov for those who only eat Pas Yisroel on those days? What about other breakfast cereals? Must they be Pas Yisroel? A. There are differing opinions as to whether Cheerios is considered pas. The OU poskim do not consider it pas, because of the size of the individual pieces and the manner in which it is made. Likewise, wheat flake cereals are not considered ?bread-like? and therefore do not need to be pas Yisroel. Corn and Rice Cereals are, by definition, not bread items. See our Pas Yisroel List ? 5781 at OUKosher.org for OU certified Pas Yisroel brands and products. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 14:09:36 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200922210936.GD19252@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 11:36:29PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was > supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated > prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in > the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it? The SA often just echoes Chazal when the case is considered theoretical. So, if he didn't see people really trying to say Shema in la'az, the Mechaber wouldn't deal with the practical problems of trying to do so and just note that hypothetically, Chazal said it was mutar. > He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators > lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are > incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text > holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to > adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists? Or maybe just the right shade for each instance. If you get too nitpicky, you'll note that two different speakers of the same language have different memories and associations with many of their different words, and don't have bidiyuq the same things in mind when using them. Exact precision is a rabbit's hole to fall down. The question is defining "exact enough". Maybe exact enough to relay one out of multiple peshatim? WRT semitic languages, there are going to be much closer matches. So, davening in Aramaic seems much more doable than davening in a Romantic or Germanic language. > According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the > Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word > "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those > languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's > satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty > AND Was/Is/WillBe? Or maybe Moshe translated to a phrase. Or maybe, because Moshe knew which connotation of the sheim was primary in each context, he was able to pick the right translation for each. > In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my > translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3: ... > 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana, > Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe > (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written > in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167. But he pointedly does NOT say that it's a good idea even if it's not a a safeiq. So it would seem translations are only good enough when there is no better way to deal with the situation. You're comparing what he says here lekhat-chilah with his solution for a bedi'eved. BTW, I think berikh Rachmana is about fulfilling the purpose of the berachah without trying to fulfill Chazal's coinage. Like if we said you would be be meqabel ol Malkhus Shamayim by saying Shema in English, but not yotzei the actual mitzvah of Q"Sh. Because there is no "atah", and "of this bread" isn't "Who Brings bread out of the earth". It's not even a close paraphrase, never mind translation. It's not even an exactness of translation issue. Like, what if a native Hebrew speaker followed AhS OC 202 by saying "Barukh haRachaman Adon Melekh haOlam vehalachmaniah hazot". He would also avoid the risk of berakhaha levatalah and also that of the geneivah-like behavior of eating without a berakhah. > Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the > entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did > he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude > someone from a partial translation.... Why? Maybe someone would think "If I get a perfect enough translation just until 'al levavekha' or just the first pereq, at least he would be yotzei deOraisa." And SE is a different kind of problem than Shema, since its core is baqashos, not miqra. > for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:[1]72, > where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have > assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana, > "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and > established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common > among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ... > And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe, > whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include > concepts like "Was and Is and Will Be". BUT... only for some of the dinim of Sheimos. Not translations of tefillos. As you started your discussion of RMF -- he agrees with the AhS that such translations don't exist. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, http://www.aishdas.org/asp others come to love him very naturally, and Author: Widen Your Tent he does not need even a speck of flattery. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 14:23:23 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:23:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:50:14PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot > HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So while it might be that the > Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to > come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein > and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think > it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah > out).... I was taught the same line of reasoning besheim haGra. (I emailed RSMandel to double-check if it was from him, and did he have the mar'eh maqom. Got impatient holding off this reply for an answer.) >> This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked >> how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to >> celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy. > There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah, > something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and > Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be > related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the > way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah. > Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman > 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs: > > "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and > make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are > accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations > and to call to others to make a feast. *And further it is the custom* in > our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the > sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every > place according to its custom. *And further we are accustomed* to circle > with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with > the lulav *and all is because of joy*..." The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah shel torah* venohagim...") And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah". And since the Rama told you the simchah in question is that of the siyum, I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum, and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a community that year. >> Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either >> way. > But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as > something of an obligation of the tzibbur... Yes, but we don't take the sifrei Torah out at night for any other yom tov. It's not "just" simchas YT. So the question is whether I can invoke sharing in *his* simchah over finishing the Torah to participate. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search http://www.aishdas.org/asp of a spiritual experience. You are a Author: Widen Your Tent spiritual being immersed in a human - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Sep 22 16:57:21 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:57:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] forms of teshuvah Message-ID: From R' Gil Student: Medieval Ashkenazic authorities prescribed a variety of strong acts of self-induced suffering as part of the teshuvah process, including long-term fasting, lashes, exile and more. Rabbeinu Peretz (Gloss to Semak, no. 53) lists four kinds of teshuvah: 1) teshuvas charatah, in which you regret the sin; 2) teshuvas ha-geder, in which you set additional boundaries for yourself to avoid sinning in the future; 3) teshuvas ha-kasuv, in which you undergo the punishment listed in the Torah for your sin; 4) teshuvas ha-mishkal, in which you inflict yourself with pain corresponding to the amount of pleasure you enjoyed with your sin. Of these four, the first is what we consider standard teshuvah and the second is going above and beyond. The third and fourth are not - and should not be - practiced today. The Vilna Gaon's brother (Ma'alos Ha-Torah, introduction) makes clear that we cannot undergo these harsh forms of teshuvah in our time (his time, even more so in our time) and emerge physically and religiously healthy. Instead, he recommends intense Torah study. Me- what is the nature of the paradigm change claimed by the Ma'alos Ha-Torah? Gct 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 Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Tue Sep 22 15:25:17 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:25:17 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: <> Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is: ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the Torah" That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is because of the custom of making of completing the Torah. So maybe you should argue that *this* year Simchas Torah should not be called Simchas Torah, but Shmini Atzeres sheni! He does not say, as you have said "the simcha is that of completing the Torah*. << And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah".>> Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag. Most of the prohibitions however (such as not taking the sifrei Torah out for no reason, reading over and over, calling up ketanim) are because of kavod haTorah, ie kavod haTorah is the counterweight reason *not* to do these minhagim. However similar to the idea of oseh docheh lo ta'aseh, the mitzvah of simcha is able push aside certain kevod haTorah restrictions in certain circumstances, but clearly not in ones that are in fact a disgrace to the Torah, but only ones that enhance the simcha of the Torah. There is no reason for a siyum to push aside prohibitions relating to kavod haTorah. <> But he didn't he told you that is why the day has that name, not that the simcha in question is the siyum. All the different minhagim, including, but not limited to, having the siyum, are because of simcha. << I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum, and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a community that year.>> Then he need not have listed them as "v'od nehagu" etc <> But the gemora learns the simcha for yom tov acharon shel chag out of a separate pasuk to the psukim that we learn it for Sukkos. Why would Shmini Atzeres need its only special pasuk with its own special limud, why does the Torah not combine it with the simcha learnt out for sukkos? The mishna understands that one is obligated in the same way just like the seven days of sukkos so why are they not combined in the Torah? The logical answer is because there is something somewhat different about the nature of this simcha (and in fact one might be tempted to darshen the ach, not as the gemora does to exclude the first night of sukkos, but to say that it is a day of simcha only, not simcha and sukkah and arba minim, but only simcha). The custom, and the Rema makes it very clear that it is a custom, of making the siyum is very late, given that we know that a three year cycle was in existence for many years, and yet the descriptions of what was going on on Simchas Torah well predate the universality of the one year cycle (descriptions amongst the Geonim, inter alia). The fundamental mitzvah on Shmini Atzeres/Simchas Torah is therefore ach sameach! The interesting question is why in chutz l'aretz, other than amongst those Sefardim who start the hakafot on Shmini Artzeres, we do *not* take the sifrei Torah out on Shmini Atzeres. However, to the extent that one is sitting in the sukkah on Shmini Artzeret, and it is still thereby linked to sukkos, then maybe it makes sense that in chutz l'aretz, the day that is ach sameach, with no link to what went before, is Simchas Torah, despite it only being yom tov sheini shel golios. <> But only if you assume the linkage that, against the explicit language of the Rema, the cause of all the other minhagim is the siyum, including where they are otherwise in violation of kevod haTorah, rather than that the special simcha due to the special pasuk is the cause of all the minhagim including the siyum. GCT! -Micha Regards Chana From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 03:12:16 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 06:12:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? Message-ID: . Several posters referenced the Rama, which R"n Chana Luntz translated as: > The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they > rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of > the Torah Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to our private learning of the parshios, such as those who learned the parsha each week by reading it themselves from a chumash while the shuls were closed? Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv, but by taking the time and effort to actually mouth every single word myself (rather than just listen to the kriah and let my mind dwell on this pasuk and that pasuk), I feel that my learning of Chumash this year was considerably better than in years past, and I'll have no problem celebrating that, to whatever extent our rav allows. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 23 05:51:56 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 12:51:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Medicine on Yom Kippur Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May a person who is ill, but is not in mortal danger (choleh she?ein bo sakana) consume unsweetened medicine on Yom Kippur? A. This is the subject of a dispute between the Acharonim. According to Shaagas Aryeh (75-76), one is not permitted to take medicine on Yom Kippur. Even though medicine is not a ?food?, and the prohibition to consume medicine is Rabbinic in nature ? which is normally waived for people who are ill, nonetheless, by swallowing the pill , the individual demonstrates that he or she considers it as food, and it is therefore forbidden on Yom Kippur. K?sav Sofer (OC 111) strongly disagrees and maintains that consuming medicine when ill does not demonstrate that it is a food item, and therefore medicine may be swallowed on Yom Kippur. Igros Moshe (OC 111:91) concurs with this ruling as well. If a person must drink water to swallow a pill, contemporary poskim recommend adding a bitter substance to water, such as a significant amount of lemon juice or vinegar, so that the water has a very unpleasant taste. This was the opinion of Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul, (Ohr L?Tziyon, IV 15:8), Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (Ashrei Ha?Ish III 23:230) and Rav Nissim Karelitz (Chut HaShani, Yom Kippur p. 145). If the pill is sweet, it is considered to be a food independently of its medicinal properties. In such instances, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach advised that the pill should be wrapped in a tissue and swallowed in that manner (Shemira Shabbos KeHilchasa 39:8; Halichos Shlomo, Yom HaKippurim 5:8). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 11:23:34 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 14:23:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200923182334.GA22665@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:25:17PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing >> the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah >> shel torah* venohagim...") > Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is: ... > Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah > because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the > Torah" > That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is > because of the custom of making of completing the Torah.... Because "shesimeichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh legamrah shel Torah". The simchah and making the mishteh are for the completion of the Torah. And thus the name of the holiday reflects that simchah. ... > Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha > on yom tov acharon shel chag. But the Rama doesn't say simchas YT, just "mishum simchah". OTOH, as we saw, the Rama opens by speaking of the simchah and mishteh of completing the Torah. So, if he just says "simchah" afterwards, why would I think it is anything but the "semeichin ... legamra shel Torah" already brought into the discussion? You're assuming the Rama changes topics without telling us. (Of course, I didn't think any of this out before my first post. I just read the sources, not thinking about other possibilities until it became a discussion. But I can't say that you convinced me yet that I brought too many unconscious assumptions to the table, that your read is comparably viable.) On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 06:12:16AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public > laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to > our private learning of the parshios... It refers to the completion that occured that morning, which was indeed leining. The AhS ad loc says the party is traditionally paid for with pledges by the Chasanim. Not, as I see done today, that the qiddush the next two Shabbosos are. > Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv... A siyum is a siyum. People make a siyum on a mesechtes gemara that they had no particular chiyuv to learn over learning something else. I just don't think we were mesaymim what the minhagim were established to celebrate. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. http://www.aishdas.org/asp If you want time, you must make it. Author: Widen Your Tent - Charles Buxton - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Wed Sep 23 15:37:44 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 23:37:44 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: > Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have > simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag. And RMB replied: <> I suppose the reason it seems to me obvious that mishum simcha, means the simcha of Yom Tov, is because: a) when the poskim say something is meshum simcha in the context of yom tov, they mean the mitzvah of simcha - for example: the Levush and the Bach (and numerous others, I believe) hold that the hakafos of the lulav during sukkos is mishum simcha (or at least the hakafos in the Beis HaMikdash, come directly out of the pasuk mandating simcha, and we then do them as a zecher. In that context, various rishonim and achronim discuss whether an avel is permitted to do hakafos, ie whether the simcha of the day pushes of the fact that a avel is forbidden from simcha. And in all these discussions, when they talk about simcha or mishum simcha, simchas Yom Tov is understood. b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas Torah. But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion would need to be had. c) On the other hand, the obligation to have a seudas mitzvah on finishing learning comes from a statement in gemora shabbas (118b-119a) where Abaye says: he should be rewarded because whenever he heard about a tzurba d'rabanan finishing a mesechta, he would make a yom tov for the Rabbis, which is understood to mean a seudas mitzvah. This is listed as part of a whole list of various Amoraim stating what it is that they believe they should get a special reward for, including being careful in known mitzvos (such a tefillin and tzitzis, and three meals on shabbas) and what are identified as good minhagim (such as not going daled amos with his head uncovered). It is really not clear into which category Abaye's statement falls. And while the Rema in Yore Deah siman 246, si'if 26 does say that " when one finishes a mesechet it is a mitzvah to rejoice and to make a feast, and it is called a seudas mitzvah" - to hang everything we do on Simchas Torah on this one statement in the gemora seems like a breathtaking chiddush. And think about it this way. If I were to finish a mesechta, here today, does that mean I can take the sifrei Torah out of the aron, dance around with them, call up some children (and some people together at once, making the brachos at once), read multiple times, take the sifrei Torah out into the street, (and, if it was shabbas, dance even if in general I held that dancing on shabbas is not permitted, as per the Shulchan Aruch?). Given that the essential siyum that is described in the gemora and referred to by the Rema is on a mesechet in Shas, then all this should be permissible on any day of the week, not just Simchas Torah. Because mai nafka minah. So I suppose it seems to me obvious that all the heterim the Rema refers to cannot be because of the simcha of the siyum, especially as the heterim were in place before the siyum was necessarily happening, historically, which again seems to suggest that the one does not cause the other. I do see that in fact the Aruch HaShulchan seems to support you, as in Orech Chaim siman 669 si'if 2 he says in the middle of the piece: "And also we are accustomed that two are called up together and bless, and even though it is not correct in any event because of the joy of the siyum they do so ." - whereas I would have thought he should say the joy of Yom Tov. So the Aruch HaShulchan would seem to be supporting your position. But still, I cannot see, if the Aruch HaShulchan is saying this, how he can be correct, because the consequences must surely be that any time there is a siyum, such a heter would then be permissible, or at least tolerable. I just can't see how this is right. I cannot see how, even if the whole of klal yisrael this year decided that we were going to have a siyum on kriyas hatorah when we had had a full year since last lockdown (ie assuming a vaccine became widely available and was effective), somewhere in the middle of the year, it would it be mutar as part of holding that siyum on krias haTorah on an ordinary Shabbat, to have the usual Simchas Torah heterim. According to you it would be, but I cannot see that this can be right, and I struggle to believe the Rema would authorise it were he here today. <> Not really. Given that mishum simcha in the context of a Yom Tov is logically understood to mean simchas yom tov, without the modifier, the Rema is just explaining in greater detail why we do everything we do before. That *includes* holding the completion of the krias hatorah cycle on Simchas Torah. ie we arrange to have the siyum on Simchas Torah, *because* of the nature of Simchas Torah, not that Simchas Torah is the way it is because of the siyum of finishing the reading cycle. -Micha Gmar Tov Chana From zev at sero.name Wed Sep 23 17:48:28 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: On 23/9/20 6:37 pm, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an > avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas > Torah. But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion > would need to be had. Last year, when I was an avel, I was told that for Hoshanos I should not go around at all, and should lend my arba minim to someone else who hasn't got them, and have him go around in my place. (Or at least that's how I understood it; it may be that lending the arba minim was simply a suggestion to do someone a chesed, since I wasn't using them.) For Simchas Torah I was told that I could go around with the group, but should not hold a sefer torah while doing so; after the hakafa I could take a sefer and dance with it. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781 zev at sero.name "May this year and its curses end May a new year and its blessings begin" From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 25 05:07:22 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 12:07:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?What_foods_should_one_eat_at_the_seuda_?= =?windows-1252?q?ha=92mafsekes_=28last_meal=29_on_erev_Yom_Kippur=3F?= Message-ID: Please see https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/foods-one-eat-seuda-hamafsekes-last-meal-erev-yom-kippur/?category=yom-kippur&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shsh%20Haazinu%205781%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=32573763&spUserID=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&spJobID=1784317155&spReportId=MTc4NDMxNzE1NQS2 What foods should one eat at the seuda ha?mafsekes (last meal) on erev Yom Kippur? | OU Kosher Certification Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 608:4) writes that on erev Yom Kippur, one should eat light foods that are easily digestible, so one will be able to daven on Yom Kippur with proper concentration. There is a common custom to dip challah in honey. Mishnah... oukosher.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emteitz at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 13:32:06 2020 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 16:32:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What will be with Simchas Torah Message-ID: The comment was made, "Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to our private learning of the parshios, such as those who learned the parsha each week by reading it themselves from a chumash while the shuls were closed? Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv, . . ." It isn't? See OC 385:1. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Sep 29 05:08:16 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:08:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is an Esrog Muktza on Shabbos Message-ID: >From today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. This year, the first day of Sukkos is Shabbos, and there is no mitzvah of lulav and esrog. Can I show my neighbor my beautiful esrog, or is it muktza? Q. Shulchan Aruch (OC 658:2) writes that a lulav is muktzah on Shabbos. Since there is no mitzvah of lulav and esrog on Shabbos, a lulav serves no purpose, and it is mukztah like other tree branches. However, an esrog may be moved, since it has a function; one may smell the fruit. (There is a dispute if the beracha on fragrances is recited when smelling an esrog on Sukkos, since the primary function of an esrog on Sukkos is for the mitzvah of lulav and esrog and not for fragrance. To avoid the uncertainty of reciting a beracha, the Shulchan Aruch recommends not smelling an esrog on Sukkos. Nonetheless the Mishnah Berurah (658:5) writes there is no restriction to smell an esrog on Shabbos and recite a beracha, because there is no mitzvah on that day.) Since, it has a function, it is not muktza, and it may be moved for any purpose. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt?l (Shmiras Shabbos K?Hilchaso 22: note 62) writes that today, since people are protective of their esrogim and will not pass them around to be smelled, they are categorized as ?muktza machmas chisaron kis? (expensive or delicate items that are generally stored in a safe location), which may not be moved for any reason on Shabbos. The Aruch Hashulchan (OC 308:17) appears to rule this way as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 03:05:03 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 06:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: . I have long been bothered by why we cannot start or stop Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/geshem without a formal announcement , yet no announcements at all are required for starting and stopping any of the other changes to our tefilos. This past spring, in Avodah 38:24, I quoted a teshuva from Rav Hershel Schachter, where he tackled this question. (It is titled "Piskei Corona #9: Hallel on Pesach Night and Tefillas Tal". "Our Rav" refers to Rav JB Soloveitchik z"l; the parentheses are Rav Schachter's.) > There is a big difference between She'eila (V'sen Tal Umatar > Livracha) and Hazkara (Mashiv Haruach). See what I wrote in > the name of our Rav in MiPeninei HaRav (section Tefila, number > 5), that changing the descriptions of Hashem (from Mashiv > Haruach to Morid Hatal) requires Reshus Hatzibur, and an > individual is not allowed to make changes on his own. But I still don't understand what makes Mashiv Haruach so unusual. According to Rav Schachter's logic, shouldn't we also need Reshus Hatzibur to change the description of Hashem between HaKeil HaKadosh and HaMelech HaKadosh? Moreover, why is this Reshus Hatzibur required *every* *single* *time* that we start or stop Mashiv Haruach? Why isn't it sufficient that Chazal ordained that we start it every year on Shmini Atzeres, and stop it every year on Pesach? I once questioned how our Yom Tovim have any d'Oraisa status at all: If there's no Beis Din to declare that a certain day was Rosh Chodesh Tishrei, then where does Yom Kippur's status come from? The answer I got (Eliyahu Kitov, The Book of Our Heritage, v 1 pg 230) was that Hillel's beis din was mekadesh in *advance* all future Roshei Chadashim that would be calculated according to his rules. According to this reasoning, the required Reshus Hatzibur doesn't have to come from the gabbai or the chazan. It comes from Chazal, who ordained this schedule of changes to the Amidah, so when the calendar says to make a change, my requirement to do so comes automatically, whether I'm in shul or not, just like for all the other changes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Sep 30 12:02:34 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:02:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] fear of death Message-ID: Sheldon Solomon is a social psychologist at Skidmore College. He earned his B.A. from Franklin and Marshall College and his doctoral degree from the University of Kansas. He is best known for developing terror management theory, along with Jeff Greenberg and Tom Pyszczynski which is concerned with how humans deal with their own sense of mortality Sheldon Solomon - "I feel like there's a real sense in which doing these studies and writing books and lecturing has been my way of avoiding directly confronting my anxieties by turning it (me - fear of death) into an intellectual exercise" [Me - sounds like it could've been said by R'Chaim] Is this a common approach in orthodox circles Gmar tov 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 llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 30 06:10:27 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:10:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Question for Today's Times Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May one fulfill the mitzvah of picking up their lulav and esrog while wearing gloves? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 651:7) writes that if a person wrapped a cloth around their hand and picked up the lulav, some say one has not fulfilled the mitzvah. This is because the cloth is a chatzitza (barrier) between the hand and the lulav. The Mishnah Berurah (651:33) writes that the same applies if one is wearing gloves. He also explains that the reason Shulchan Aruch writes ?some say?, is because this is a matter of dispute among Rishonim. The opinion of the Ran is that if one wrapped their hands with cloth or put on gloves, the cloth is viewed as an extension of one?s hand, and as such, it is not a barrier. Therefore, if one did pick up the lulav while wearing gloves, the lulav should be lifted again to fulfill the mitzvah in accordance with those who view the glove as a chatziza. However, a new beracha would not be said because the mitzvah was already fulfilled according to the Ran. One who must wear gloves in shul should recite the berachos and shake the lulav at home before coming to shul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Jul 1 05:12:56 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:12:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ben Noach and mitzvas kiddush hashem Message-ID: <043501d64fa0$f4d21a60$de764f20$@touchlogic.com> I believe a few issues ago someone asked if benei noach are obligated in mitzvas kiddush hashem (to be moser nefesh to avoid their 7 mitzvos, as we are obligated wrt murder/arayos/AZ) See toldos Noah at length on this subject. Pg. 247-270 Email offline if you want scans.. Are they commanded in mitzvas kiddush hashem (no - rambam) Are they allowed to be moser nefesh for mitzvas kiddush hashem (machlokes) Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid killing someone (machlokes) Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid abortion. q etc From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 1 09:40:03 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 16:40:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux Message-ID: I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? 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 mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Jul 1 15:31:10 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:31:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status Message-ID: <052501d64ff7$52b1d1b0$f8157510$@touchlogic.com> https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/kosher-appliances/467/shattered-dre ams/ ... What is induction cooking? Induction cooking is a revolutionary energy efficient way of cooking without heat. How do you cook without heat? The answer is with electro-magnetic energy. The conventional burner is replaced with a coil of tightly wound copper wire under the glass cooktop. Turning on the "burner" sends electro-magnetic energy through the coil. If you placed your hand on the coil area, you would feel nothing. If you placed an aluminum pan on the same area you would still feel nothing. However, by placing an iron skillet or a pot with an iron core or magnetized stainless steel on the cooktop, the magnetized skillet completes the magnetic connection and the electro-magnetic field of energy transfers directly into the pan. This causes the iron molecules to move very rapidly, giving off heat. In turn, the cookware cooks the food. Lifting the pan off of the cooktop breaks the magnetic connection, and you will no longer be cooking. The cooktop will be heated by the "magnetic" pot or pan, but it does not get hot from the coil. Consequently, any spill onto the ceramic cooktop surface will be a result of an irui kli rishon, spillage from a hot pot, not a heated cooktop as you would have in conventional cooking. Hence, if one would want to kasher the cooktop, it could be accomplished by a lesser means of kasherization, irui kli rishon.10 Although induction cooking offers a koshering benefit, the cooktop cannot be used on Shabbos or Yom Yov because the cooking connection is made once the pot is put onto the coil area. Similarly, one would not be able to remove the pot from the cooktop on Shabbos or Yom Tov because one would be "disconnecting" the magnetic field by removing the pot. While the ability to kasher an induction cooktop is an advantage, the disadvantage of not being able to use it on Shabbos or Yom Tov makes this cooktop impractical, unless one has more than one cooktop in the kitchen (an induction for during the week, and a non-induction for Shabbos and Yom Tov). As with every new advent of technology, one balabusta's dream is another balabusta's nightmare. From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 03:43:44 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:43:44 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 3:00 PM Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was > forbidden. So at least for Ashkenazim this whole issue should not > exist. Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut. > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for the gezeira seem to apply. Even for Sephardim, since the SA is meikel in seif 4 in the case of servants in a beit yisrael. Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 15:43:22 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:43:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:27:08AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > RMB writes: >> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and that >> the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / minhag she'eino >> chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done. > So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b: > Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, v'Rav > Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: > Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? People practice like REbY. Why? R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example of BY chalaq R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah I presume you would say something like: R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: it'r universal pesaq R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something entirely different? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. Author: Widen Your Tent - Rachel Levin Varnhagen - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From cantorwolberg at cox.net Thu Jul 2 05:57:12 2020 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:57:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Something to Ponder Message-ID: To paraphrase this profound statement below by R? Yitzchok from the Talmud R.H. (16b) which is quite timely: Any year that begins without the straightforward, clear and unequivocal tekiya, will sadly end with the wavering sound of defeat ? the terua. ??"? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 05:12:53 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:12:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: . In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this is the one I want to ask about.) > The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation > of Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana > (danger). Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the > Mishnah, shuls were located outside of the cities where it was > not safe to be alone at night. The Rabbis were concerned that > people who came late to shul might be left alone while finishing > to daven. To give latecomers a chance to catch up and finish > davening with everyone else, Chazal extended the davening by > adding Mei'ein Sheva. I've heard this same explanation many times from many sources, but I've never understood it. Mei'ein Sheva is shorter than a single page in most siddurim - does its presence really lengthen the service significantly? If the shuls were outside the cities, it must have taken a certain amount of time to get home, and even to get to the outskirts of the city. Were the latecomers unable to catch up to their neighbors? Were the on-time people unwilling to stay in shul for the one or two minutes needed for the latecomers to finish? If this problem was sufficiently significant for Chazal to enact this measure, there were probably several latecomers every week, not just a single latecomer now and then. If so, couldn't the latecomers simply wait for each other, even if the on-time people rushed to get home? There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better? Thank you in advance. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 07:14:04 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:14:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200702141404.GB25994@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 01:43:44PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was > > forbidden.... > > exist. Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut. > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and > pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh" > it includes any form of cooking by heat... Or, any form of cooking by fire, whether broiling, roasting or boiling or frying in water or oil that are heated by fire. For an example that predates the taqaah, solar cooking. Does a rishon deal with the question of eating an egg cooked in the sand that was placed there by a non-Jew? And, as I opened in my first response, it's not just the Rama; "al ha'eish" and variants are common in the discussion. I don't think it's an Ashkenazi thing, just because the SA doesn't use the idiom himself. > That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a > Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for > the gezeira seem to apply.... The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for refu'ah beShabbos. Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking via fire. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, http://www.aishdas.org/asp eventually it will rise to the top. Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 2 07:13:40 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:13:40 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> > RMB wrote: >> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and >> that the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / >> minhag she'eino chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done. And I wrote: > So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b: > Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, > v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: > Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? <> Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim. If you were having a shiur about the halacha of meat, it would be remiss of you to mention the one, and not the other. And if you were giving a shiur to both Ashkenazim and Sephardim, I hope you would say - CYLOR [the L of course standing for "local"], rather than saying "we pasken" one way or the other. Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel, you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like. There are other opinions, and they might have been brought, but the end of the shiur would say - follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov, whereas I would hope that would not be what you would say regarding BY chalaq. <> But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>. Glatt is a tricky one, because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin. And the question then comes down to, why is it that someone keeps glatt, is it because he wants to be machmir for those who think it is really following the BY's iqur hadin, or is it because that is what his community does. If he is just doing it because he lives with other Hungarians so does it, but he really thinks the Rema is right, and it is a chumra that the people came up with (which you can argue it is, particularly because glatt is not the same as BY chalak) then it is a minhag garua. But if the community does it because they are really holding like the BY (at least to an extent), despite the Rema, I would say it is a minhag chashuv. I thought the better example of what you were saying is milchigs on Shavuos, which has no Rav psak behind it, but which has Rabbinic approval in the form of the Rema. That shows the distinction between what I thought you were arguing and what I am much more clearly. Ie that according to you minhag chashuv has no Rabbinic psak source, it is something the people came up with, but it is a religious practice that the Rabbis then approved, whereas I am saying that for a minhag chashuv to be a minhag chashuv, there needs to be a rabbinic psak that the people are relying on, even if other communities hold differently. And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, and the community then followed. It is not some religious idea, like milchigs on Shavuos, that the community came up with independently and then was approved. If R' Eliezer or Rabbi Meir had never paskened the way they did, then the minhag would never have arisen. That, I thought, was the fundamental distinction between what I am saying and you are saying. That I was saying to be a minhag chashuv, it has to be originally Rav psak derived, that people then followed. Whereas I understood you as saying that a psak is a psak, and different from a minhag chashuv, which had to be people derived, ie bottom up, albeit with Rav approval post fact. And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag? <> But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good thing. Especially as we discussing what are needed for an eruv (a halachic device), or whether the kohanim should duchan during Mincha and nei'ila of Yom Kippur. These aren't things like going around with baskets on your head, or squeezing fruit. They are religious acts. <> Yes. << R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq>> Yes, although I prefer to phrase it the psak that the people as a community [I prefer that to the term "local" as it sounds limited, while communities can be large or small] have adopted following Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, or Rabbi Meir [out of the options available], making it the minhag chashuv. <> I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in psak. To the point where their psak is not a valid psak. The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. Regarding R' Yochanan I believe I am following Rashi. Both Rashi, Tosfos and the Rosh refer us to Ta'anis 26b where it explains that if it is the halacha, you teach it "b'pirka" - ie you learn it out in the public halachic discussions. If it is minhag, you don't teach it b'pirka, but if someone comes to you and asks, you posken that way, and where it says nahagu - one does not rule this way, just "I avid, avid, v'lo mehadrinan lei". And Rashi in Ta'anis, says: U'man d'amar nahagu [ie Rabbi Yochanan] - mashma: hen nohagu me'alehen, aval aino ikar. Uminhag mashmar - Torat minhag yesh b'davar, uminhag kosher hu. The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher. That rather sounds like either it is a minhag taus [which in Yerushalmi speak is aino minhag, such as not working all motzei shabbas, even though this is clearly a religious practice] or a norm that has halachic impact. But it should not be dignified with the name minhag. However over in Eruvin Rashi (quoted approvingly there by Tosfos and the Rosh) uses the language - aval i avide lo machinan byadayhu - ie if they do it, we don't protest. That sounds much more like the minhagim that the Tosfos and the Rosh were discussing in Pesachim as being minhag lo chasuv (ie tolerated, and not gone against in front of, ie you are not to rule publically in front of them, but you don't actually have to keep), which is contrasted to a minhag chasuv. Tosfos in Brachos 52b (d"h nahagu ha'am) draws a different distinction between the situation over in Ta'anis and in Eruvin (and elsewhere, such as Rosh Hashana) and the situation in Brachos where Rabbi Yochanan again says nahagu ha'am [like Beis Hillel in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda - the subject matter being whether we say the blessing over the spices before or after the blessing over the flame in havdala]. Because we [and I think we all in fact, as Tosfos says] l'chatchila go according to this R' Yochanan that we make the blessing over the spices before the flame, and yet it would seem from Eruvin 62b (as understood by Ta'anis) that l'chatchila one shouldn't follow where it says nahagu ha'am, just that where the people are so accustomed, we don't make them go back if they did it wrong (so in the case of the havdala, one would think one should really bless the flame first, and then the spices, just if people did it the other way around, we wouldn't make them repeat havdala). And Tosfos' answer there in Brochos is that over in Eruvin, the nahagu ha'am is contrasted to someone saying "halacha" which means "halacha l'chatchila u'morin ken" and therefore when somebody else says nahagu they are meaning bideved, "aval hacha yachol l'hios d'ain kan ele nahagu greida". Note however that in the case in Brachos everybody agrees the halacha is like Beis Hillel (versus Beis Shammai). The issue at stake is how to understand Beis Hillel - like Rabbi Yehuda or like Rabbi Meir. And while Rabbi Meir would seem to be the stam mishna, we follow Rabbi Yehuda. That feels to me less "al pi Talmud chacham" - it is more how the relevant Talmud Chacham understood another set of talmudei chachamim. Whereas the case in Eruvin 62b is regarding what R' Eliezer ben Yaa'kov himself held (regarding non-Jews assuring a courtyard for eruv purposes, if there was only one Jew) versus Rabbi Meir, or in Eruvin 72 (do you need a shituf and an eruv), or Ta'anis (whether on Yom Kippur the Kohanim should bless at Mincha and ne'ila) ie is a matter of direct psak versus psak. With the sense that according to Rabbi Yochanan the psak in question is plain wrong, and knowledgeable people should ignore it. I think you could thus alternatively argue that Brachos is a classic minhag garua that happened to accord with how Rabbi Yehuda understood Beis Hillel, which in the absence of a clear psak either way, we follow the order the people decided upon, for their own reasons, whereas in the other cases, it is a minhag taus, that the psak is clearly wrong in halachic terms, but because there is this da'as yachid position out there, the hachamim were not prepared, in bideved situations, to make people go back and redo. Or you can say that actually over in Brachos Rabbi Yochanan, while using the term nahagu ha'am, given that it was not used in contrast to minhag k', meant really to say minhag k' - making it a minhag chashuv. Or maybe in fact we just ignore Rabbi Yochanan's expression. And what we are actually following is the ma'ase shehaya of Rava. In any event, for me the key fact is the Rav Huna defines minhag explicitly as going according to a psak, something you, I believe, said couldn't happen. How you understand Rabbi Yochanan, who specifically does not use the term minhag, just nagu ha'am for something which (leaving aside the situation in Brachos) he disapproves of, is secondary. -Micha Regards Chana From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 07:36:54 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:36:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:13:40PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote: >> Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, >> v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: >> Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? >> <> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example >> of BY chalaq > Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is not > what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim... You totally lost me. Neither Shemu'el's nor R Yehudah's "we" are Askenazim or Separadim. ... > Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we > pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel, > you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben > Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like... We are in agreement. >> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt > But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common religious > practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>... Which is exactly what I have R Huna saying here. The actual halakhah is lenient, the hamon am in practice are nohagim to be stringent like REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the stringency. It's not din, but it's a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval -- a minhag chashuv. > Glatt is a tricky one, because of > the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin... Still, Hungarians are following it as minhag, and are more lenient than the Sepharadi half of the world BECAUSE it is "just" minhag. To them. The issue you raise is a distraction from explaining the gemara. > And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely > and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi > Meir, and the community then followed... > And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as > expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' > Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario, > and yet it has the definition of minhag? After the rabbinate said you didn't have to. So in that sense it is "bottom up". The masses chose to do something extrahalachic. >> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah > But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a > minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good > thing.... By "common" hanhagah tovah I meant in contrast to any kind of minhag. Something many pious people do, not the masses. Like learning all night on Shavuos in Lithuania circa 1890. But in principle, even if R Huna meant everyone was doing it: Why would hanhagah tovah mean that the rabbis endorsed it? And I think you then agree with this "in princple, when you write: >> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He >> can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi >> talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something >> entirely different? > I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact > something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a > non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in > certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are > accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The point being here, is > that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in > psak. To the point where their psak is not a valid psak. The problem > being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and > have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. R Yochanan can say something is a hanhagah tovah and not a pesaq nor even an actual minhag. > The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice > with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher... Which according to me is what "minhag garua" means. Whereas you're saying that R Yochanan refers to it as a hanhagah, but is not calling it a minhag garua. Despite the common shoresh. So we agree on w to understand this machloqes, we disagree with what to call each position. To me, Shemu'el and R Yehudah, by talking about pesaq aren't talking about minhag chashuv. To you there are. R Huna is definitely talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq. Which to me is a minhag chashuv and to you a minhag garua. And R Yochanan is talking about a practies that doesn't rise up to that level. Which to me is a minhag garua and to you not even that much. It's all just in the labels, but that changes how we read the rishonim. That is why I ignored all the gemaras you cited that don't use the /nhg/ shoresh. The rest of your post argues for something we agree about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. http://www.aishdas.org/asp All that is left to us is Author: Widen Your Tent to be as human as possible while we are here. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From zev at sero.name Thu Jul 2 08:08:02 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 11:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking > and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul > shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking > with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the food gets hot of its own accord. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 2 11:51:19 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:51:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <003001d650a1$c6ab7350$540259f0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: >> <> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example >> of BY chalaq > Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is > not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim... <> You wrote the words "parallel to my example of BT chalaq" - see above. I responded to *your* example of BY chalaq - because you said that "R' Yehuda amar Shemuel: that's what we pasken - is parallel to my example of BY chalaq" I totally agree that neither Shemuel's nor R' Yehuda's "we" are Ashenazim or Sephardim - but *you* said that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is parallel to your example of BY chalaq (which you contrasted to glatt), and BY chalaq versus glatt is about Ashkenazim and Sephardim. If you agree that BY chalaq is not a parallel, then there is no need for this discussion. But because of the parallel that you brought, I couldn't (and can't) see how you can make the statement below (which you say you agree with): > Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is > what we pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda > amar Shemuel, you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow > R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like... If we agree that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is *not* parallel to BY chalaq, then we can agree we understand R'Yehuda amar Shmuel the same. >> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like >> glatt > But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common > religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>... <> Err, ReBY is actually the lenient one (he says you need two Jews living in a chatzer to assur it for carrying). Rabbi Meir is the stringent one (he says you only need one Jew and the chatzer is assur). So transposing your explanation, but with the correct way round, do you agree that, "the actual halacha is strict, the hamon am are in practice nohagim to be lenient like REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the leniency. It is not din, but it is a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval - a minhag chasuv"? Now do you think that if the people did not have ReBY to rely on, but had just come up with this by themselves, against the halacha of Rabbi Meir, Rav Huna would be so tolerant? If yes, then why did he phrase it as minhag k'RebY? Why didn't he say that if there is only one Jew in the courtyard, the minhag is to carry (because it doesn't' matter whether ReBY said so or not)? But if it *does* matter that ReBY said so, then you need more than just the people coming up with this idea of only one Jew living on the chatzer themselves. You need ReBY, or some other Rav, to have said so, followed by community acceptance to have it become a minhag. > Glatt is a tricky one, > because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin... > And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as > expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' > Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated > scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag? <> There were two different piskei halacha out there. ReBY (the lenient one) and R' Meir (the stringent one). R' Yehuda amar Shmuel states emphatically that ReBY is right, Halachically, and that the halacha is like him. R' Huna appears not to agree, otherwise he would have said what R' Yehuda amar Shemuel said. Rather, he accepts that the people having made the choice to go for the lenient position as a valid minhag. It is partially bottom up in that the people have made a choice between Psak A and Psak B, and decided to follow Psak A, in this case the lenient psak, but I do not believe they have decided to do something extrahalachic independent of there being two piskei halacha out there. It is the same scenario as following R' Yossi for milk and chicken, or Rabbi Eliezer for cutting the wood to make the knife to do the bris on shabbas. Or moving a lit candle on shabbas. Or working or not working erev pesach morning. Each case is the same underlying scenario: there were a range of piskei halacha out there. And certain communities, or sometimes the whole people, decided to follow one psak over another (even though in pure halachic terms that isn't necessarily the halacha). That is what makes it a minhag chasuv, as articulated by the Ri and the Rosh, ie that it is al pi Talmud chacham, and not just something the people came up with on their own, even where the people can provide religious justification. RMB: >> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah Chana: > But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a > minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a > good thing.... <> *Hanhaga tova* is *your* language, not mine. I assume you mean R' Yochanan here, not R' Huna, because you are the one who applied the words hanhaga tova to R' Yochanan in a previous post. I don't at all think that R' Yochanan is describing what he thinks of as a "hanhaga tova". I think (and I believe Rashi and Tosfos agree with me) that in this context if you have to use the term hanhaga, then he believes he is describing a hanhaga ra. <> No idea what you mean here. >> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? >> He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY >> is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to >> mine or something entirely different? > I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact > something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a > non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish > people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things > people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The > point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is > actually flat out wrong in psak. To the point where their psak is not > a valid psak. The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the > people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. <> He could, but in the context, where he is dealing with a situation where there is a lenient psak and a stringent psak, and where the people are going according to the lenient psak, he is clearly not saying that. He is saying it wrong what the people are doing, but if you come across somebody who has done it, they either don't have to reverse what they have done, or you don't need to create a fuss (as they have what he considers a da'as yachid to rely on). Depending on which Rashi you follow (and presumably Rashi/Tosfos in Eruvin had a different girsa in Ta'anis, given that they don't quote "not reversing", but "not protesting"). > The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this > practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher... <> Hanhaga was, as mentioned, your language, not mine. I said that one interpretation of Rabbi Yochanan is a minhag garua - that is if you hold that it is something that one shouldn't protest. Just like all the other cases in Pesachim where the rabbis said not to protest the minhagim. However if it is something one should protest, just that one doesn't make people do things again (ie our girsa in Ta'anis), then that appears to be less than a minhag garua (more like a minhag taus). <> No, I don't think so. <> No, I never said that, and I don't think so. In the case of Shmuel and R Yehuda we are talking about psak. <> No. To me what R' Huna is talking about is also minhag chashuv. I didn't think you agreed with that, but am fine if you do. If you agree that this is a minhag chashuv, then it would seem that what we disagree about is whether or not Rav Huna is "talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq". You say definitely, ie "definitely talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq". I don't think this is right at all. I believe Rav Huna is talking about a common practice performed by the people *in light of ReBY's psak* Which is precisely why he phrases it as "minhag k'ReBY". Because the fact that there was a psak from ReBY is critical to his understanding. It is what makes it a minhag choshuv (and not a minhag garua). Just as the Ri and the Rosh and the Shach say that the definition of a minhag chasuv is that it is "al pi talmid chacham". This is "al pi talmid chacham" - the psak of ReBY, which is key to what drove the people. No ReBY, no such minhag. And R' Huna is expressing this clearly by linking the minhag with the psak of ReBY. <> Not quite. If we didn't have the girsa we do in Ta'anis, ie we had the girsa that Rashi and Tosfos in Eruvin seem to have had, I would say this was a minhag garua. Problem is, our girsa in Ta'anis doesn't just say, we don't protest, but we don't make them do over again or go back (given that in Ta'anis we are talking about kohanim duchaning at nei'lah, presumably that means we don't have the Shatz resay the non duchaning language, after the kohanim have ostensibly duchened, or make the kohanim sit down once they have said the bracha). That suggests that we do in fact protest if we can get to them before they get started duchening. I don't think something that the chachamim were prepared to protest, even if the view they are protesting is based on the psak of a Talmud Chacham, can be considered any kind of minhag, except perhaps a minhag taus. <> I agree it is all in the labels, but I thought there was something more fundamental here. My understanding of your position was that if the people were following a particular psak (such as the people following the psak of ReBY or the people following the psak of Rabbi Yehuda not to work on the morning of erev pesach), that could not be called minhag. Rathein your view minhag, including minhag choshuv, had to be something that was generated by the people themselves, like milchigs on Shavuos, ie completely bottom up. That is why I could not see how you characterised what R' Huna said, of minhag k'ReBY as minhag, as it didn't seem to fit. Whereas my understanding of a minhag chashuv was that it needed to have at its root a psak of a Rav, with the bottom up aspect of it being the people's, or a community of people's, decision to take on that particular psak, even in the face of disagreement from other Rabbonim. That seems to fit perfectly with Rav Huna's statement of minhag k'ReBY. I thus understand a completely bottom up minhag as falling within the category of minhag garua (or just minhag)- although even within that category, there are those that have strong rabbinic approval, and those that have weak to non-existent rabbinic approval (depending on how garua they are). But like your minhag chashuv, my minhag garua does have to relate to something religious/halachic, even though at some point one reaches a situation where the rabbis come out full force against what the people are doing. The reason I am so vague about the line between minhag garua and minhag taus, is that this line seems very difficult to define, Ie at what point does a minhag which is very garua tip into a minhag taus seems hard for me to pinpoint (I have been looking at two cases of very dodgy minhagim, namely women in states of tuma'ah - both involving, inter alia, women not going to shul - one during their periods, and one in the period after giving birth, and the attitudes towards them couldn't be more different. The one is reasonably accepted as something of an acceptable minhag, with some rabbinic blessing, even though the origins are difficult, and it is clear it is solely women generated, while the other gets the full minhag taus, must be stamped out, treatment, at least amongst some. Even though on first glance they would seem to be directly parallel). While you, I thought given that you characterised what I called minhag garua as being minhag chasuv, understood minhag garua as being something done even by non-Jews that had halachic impact, which didn't seem to me to be what was being discussed in the gemora in Pesachim at any point, and hence not the subject of the Ri and Rosh's distinction there. -Micha Regards Chana From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 14:38:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 17:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: free public transport on Shabbos/Yomtov In-Reply-To: <004401d644dc$61126e20$23374a60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004401d644dc$61126e20$23374a60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200702213852.GD25994@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 08:20:35PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > There are a fair number of shops, but there are a fair number of houses too > (and some blocks of flats, definitely majority Jewish). We know people who > live in a couple of the houses right on Golders Green road... A balebatishe comment: It needn't be people right on the road, though. Bus lines are routed to serve neighborhoods. Even if it were a street entirely of shops and other commercial enterprises, a route would take into account any residential areas that are in easy walking distance to any stops. Which is certainly true of what I remember from Golder's Green Road. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless http://www.aishdas.org/asp he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. Author: Widen Your Tent Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 15:23:32 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:23:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 00:29 Zev Sero via Avodah, wrote: > On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking > > and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul > > shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking > > with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. > > Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. > The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the > food gets hot of its own accord. > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and metal heated by a magnetic field? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 15:45:36 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:45:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <20200702141404.GB25994@aishdas.org> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Simon Montagu Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 01:44 Subject: Re: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status To: Micha Berger On Thu, 2 Jul 2020, 17:14 Micha Berger, wrote: > > The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't > apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for > refu'ah beShabbos. > > Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the > gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their > motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking > via fir > Lo p'log is not a universal. There are plenty of cases where hazal and the pos'kim explore in which scenarios gezeirot are or are not relevant (as opposed to implementation details in what is essentially the same situation, such as pianos or violins on shabbat). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 15:58:34 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:58:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais haVaad] Police Protection: Are Officers Liable for Injuries They Inflict? Message-ID: <20200702225834.GA17037@aishdas.org> I think this topic has crossed all of our minds lately. >From https://www.baishavaad.org/police-protection-are-officers-liable-for-injuries-they-inflict/ Tir'u baTov! -Micha The Bais HaVaad Halacha Center Police Protection: Are Officers Liable for Injuries They Inflict? Adapted from the writings of Dayan Yitzhak Grossman July 2, 2020 On June 12, Atlanta Police Department officers Garrett Rolfe and Devin Brosnan were attempting to handcuff Rayshard Brooks and arrest him for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Brooks wrestled with the officers, seized Brosnan's Taser, and attempted to flee. With Rolfe pursuing him, Brooks turned and fired the Taser toward Rolfe. Rolfe then shot at Brooks three times, striking him twice in the back and killing him. Rolfe was subsequently charged with felony murder and ten other offenses. In considering Rolfe's possible culpability for killing Brooks, the first issue is whether the shooting was justified as self-defense. We do not consider here this specific question, but only the general question of the liability of a duly authorized agent of the state for the use of force resulting in injury or death. Agents of the court In the Mishnah, Abba Sha'ul rules that a father who strikes his son, a teacher who disciplines his student, and an agent of the court, who accidentally kill, are not subject to the law of exile (galus).[1] The Tosefta rules similarly with regard to civil liability for nonlethal injury: The father, the teacher, and the agent of the court are all exempt, unless the force used is "more than is appropriate," in which case they are liable.[2] An alternate formulation appears elsewhere in the Tosefta: The agent is exempt if he injures inadvertently (b'shogeg), but liable if he injures deliberately (b'meizid), "out of concern for tikun olam."[3] R' Shimon ben Tzemach Duran explains that these two formulations are equivalent: If the force used is "appropriate" but nevertheless results in injury, the agent is considered shogeg, but if it is "more than is appropriate," he is considered meizid. He also explains that the liability in the case of meizid is in accordance with the normal laws of torts, and the concern for tikun olam is the rationale for the exemption of shogeg, i.e., Chazal absolved a shogeg from liability despite the principle of adam muad l'olam, by which people are usually held liable for torts committed b'shogeg.[4] It would seem that according to this approach, "shogeg" here has its general meaning of an act that while inadvertent, nevertheless has an element of negligence to it, and so would engender liability were it not for the concern for tikun olam, since it would seem absurd for an agent of the court who carried out his duty entirely properly to be liable for its consequences (were it not for tikun olam), any more than the court itself and its agents would be liable as tortfeasors for the very imposition of punishment such as lashes or execution upon a miscreant![5] In apparent contradiction to the assumption of the Tosefta that an agent of the court is not authorized to use more force than necessary to carry out his duty stands a ruling of Rabbeinu Yerucham ben Meshulam, accepted by some poskim, that an agent of the court who strikes the body or damages the property of a recalcitrant person is exempt even if he was able to accomplish his goal by other means.[6] It seems that this opinion understands that the availability of nonviolent means does not automatically render the use of violence "more than is appropriate." Thus in Rabbeinu Yerucham's case, although alternative nonviolent means were available, once the agent chose to utilize violence, the level of force he used was the minimum necessary to accomplish his goal, whereas in the case of the Tosefta, the level of force utilized was gratuitously high. Alternatively, some contemporary writers consider it self-evident that Rabbeinu Yerucham concedes that the authorities have no right to use "excessive" and "unreasonable" force relative to the goal of preserving the rule of law.[7] Perhaps, then, when the Tosefta assigns liability where the force used was "more than is appropriate," it is referring to just such "excessive" and "unreasonable" force. In any event, other poskim disagree with Rabbeinu Yerucham's ruling and maintain that an agent of the court is only exempt from liability for the use of force if he had no other means to achieve his goal.[8] The exemption of an agent of the court only applies provided force was used in order to compel compliance with the court's directives, but not when motivated by anger.[9] Some contemporary writers assume that a police officer would have the same status as the "agent of the court" discussed by Chazal and would therefore be exempt from liability insofar as his use of force was appropriate. __________________________________________________________________ [1]Makkos 2:2. Cf. Rambam and Ra'avad Hilchos Rotzeiach Ushmiras Hanefesh 5:6, and Bnei V'lechem Yehudah, Bnei Shmuel, Gur Aryeh, Hamei'ir La'aretz, Kruv Mimshach, Ma'asei Rokeach, Mirkeves Hamishneh, Ein Tarshish, and Shufrei D'Yaakov ibid.; Shu"t Shevus Yaakov cheilek 3 siman 140; R. Yehuda Zoldan, Tzidkas Yehuda V'Yisrael, siman 6 os 1; R. Moshe Taragin, Shliach Bais Din Sheharag Beshogeg. One version of the Tosefta contains a position contrary to that of Abba Sha'ul; see Or Sameiach Hilchos Rotzeiach 5:6 and Tzidkas Yehuda V'Yisrael ibid. [2]Tosefta Bava Kama 9:3. [3]Ibid. Gittin 3:13. [4]Shu"t Tashbatz cheilek 3 siman 82. [5]This is certainly true according to the poskim that maintain that the principle of adam muad l'olam does not apply to oness gamur (see Tosafos Bava Kama 27b s.v. uShmuel amar; Shulchan Aruch C.M. 378:1-3 and Shach ibid. s.k. 1). [6]Sefer Maysharim Nesiv 31 cheilek 2 p. 92 second column, cited by Sema C.M. siman 8 s.k. 25 and Ba'er Heitev ibid. s.k. 8. [7]Adv. Yaakov Shapiro and Dr. Michael Vigoda, Shimush B'choach al Yedei Hamishtarah, n. 33. [8]Toras Chaim Bava Kama end of daf 28; Shevus Yaakov cheilek 1 siman 180, cited in Pis'chei Teshuvah ibid. s.k. 6; Sha'ar Mishpat ibid. s.k. 2; Aruch Hashulchan ibid. se'if 6; Yeshuos Yisrael ibid. Ein Mishpat s.k. 2 and Chukas Hamishpat s.k. 6. Erech Shai ibid. se'if 5 concludes that the matter is a s'feika d'dina. Cf. Halacha Pesukah ibid. p. 86 n. 214. [9]Shu"t Ra'anach (Yerushalayim 5720) siman 111 p. 475. Cf. Shevus Ya'akov cheilek 3 end of siman 140 and Shimush B'choach al Yedei Hamishtarah. From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 16:02:21 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:02:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200702230221.GA7250@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 01:23:32AM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: >> Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. >> The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the >> food gets hot of its own accord. > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and > metal heated by a magnetic field? I believe Zev is saying that the induction cooker doesn't cause any metal to glow. However, when you cook on an old-school electric stove, the coil will glow. And glowing is included in "eish". (I'm not sure about the last part. I think it would depend on whether causing a gachales shel mateches is bishul or havarah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. http://www.aishdas.org/asp Life is about creating yourself. Author: Widen Your Tent - George Bernard Shaw - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From zev at sero.name Thu Jul 2 17:03:56 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 20:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: On 2/7/20 6:23 pm, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > Glowing hot metal is included in "fire".? Here there is no fire at all. > The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the > food gets hot of its own accord. > > > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and > metal heated by a magnetic field? The pot or pan doesn't get nearly hot enough to qualify as fire. It doesn't have to, since it's heating the food directly, rather than heating a pot sitting on top of it, which will then heat the food it contains. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Thu Jul 2 17:02:12 2020 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 00:02:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Realities of Times Past (Was: Latecomers to shul on Friday night) Message-ID: R?Akiva Miller asks (38/54) a typically thoughtful question about adding Magen Avot on Friday night. The reasoning and realities are difficult to understand, he notes, and so he asks, ?There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better?? I don?t have any answers for him but I have similar questions about reasons given for other changes in halacha. For example, we don?t blow shofar on RH that falls on Shabbat (thus missing out on a Biblical commandment) because of three maybes: (a) maybe someone will be blowing who doesn?t know how to do do properly, (b) maybe that will happen on a Shabbat RH, and (c) maybe that person will carry the shofar in a reshut harabim to an expert for instruction. Well, how often would that occur? Was this common in those days? And if so, why? It?s not common today for shofar blowers to go to experts on RH to give them instruction. And equally difficult fir me to understand, wasn?t there some other way to prevent the triple maybe sin of carrying other than making all the Jewish people for generations on end miss out on a once a year biblical commandment.? Was society so different that this was really an otherwise unmanageable problem at the time the ruling was put into effect? To paraphrase Akiva, there?s something that I'm missing about the realities of that time; can anyone explain the reasoning better? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From marty.bluke at gmail.com Fri Jul 3 00:13:36 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 10:13:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop Message-ID: R? Simon Montagu asked: > That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a > Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for > the gezeira seem to apply.... This would seem to be a classic case of davar shebminyan tzorich minyan acher lhatiro which we don?t have. There are many gezeras that we observe today even though the reason behind the gezera no longer applies. For example, taking medicine on shabbos is prohibited because you may grind the ingredients. In today?s world of pills the reason no longer applies yet most poskim still prohibit taking pills for something like a headache. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:17:50 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 17:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200706211750.GA10250@aishdas.org> Someone pointed me to https://www.torahbase.org/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%A0%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D See section 6. R' Asher Weid isn't comfortable have a nakhri cook for you by microwave. Something I had thought was pretty commonly accepted. In this case, he allws, but only because the situation that required getting a housekeeper to cook is a she'as hadechaq, and because hiring a Jewish housekeeper would be a hotza'ah merubah. Only adding the lack of aish as a yeish le'ayein and is willing to use it as an additional "chazi le'itztarufei". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he http://www.aishdas.org/asp brought an offering. But to bring an offering, Author: Widen Your Tent you must know where to slaughter and what - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 01:31:54 2020 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:31:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Realities of Times Past (Was: Latecomers to shul on Friday night) Message-ID: Fellow Ovedim have (IIRC at the behest of RAM who asked the question) been wondering why Tefillat Me'eyn Sheva' is said on Friday evenings. RJK particularly cited RAM: > "The reasoning and realities are difficult to understand," he notes, " > and so," he asks: "There's something that I'm missing about the > realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they > davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain > the story better?" There may be a clue in an article by Jacob Mann. Jacob Mann was, as far as I can reconstruct, a Pzsworsker Chassid who loved Judaism and learning, but upon landing the USA possibly tragically aligned himself with the wrong crowd. But this is just a reconstruction. For all I know, him publishing a bunch of articles in the Reform"Hebrew Union College Annual" may have been because it was in his eyes the most widespread scholarly publication, one that would afford him the most exposure. Interestingly, he insisted on transliterating Hebrew into Ashkenazi pronunciation, and HUCA agreed. At any rate, he was a pretty interesting historian of liturgy and may have been on to certain things correctly. In an article entitled Changes in the Divine Service of the Synagogue due to Persecution, he brings evidence for several periods of anti Jewish persecutions in which certain prayers or practices were prohibited, giving rise to creative solutions. Though he does not deal with Me'eyn Sheva' (as far as I remember), the setting seems to work well. Perhaps Me'eyn Sheva came from a time when Jews had to pray outside the settlements, because they were praying in hiding, and thus had to watch out for each other's safety. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 03:59:50 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:59:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status Message-ID: Rav Hershel Schachter has a fascinating essay in his Sefer about when we say lo plug by gezeros and when not. It has been a while but I believe he says that gezeros are all lo plug except if the reason was written into the nusach of the gezera. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 13:16:24 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 16:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200707201624.GE25868@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 01:59:50PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Rav Hershel Schachter has a fascinating essay in his Sefer about when we > say lo plug by gezeros and when not. It has been a while but I believe he > says that gezeros are all lo plug except if the reason was written into the > nusach of the gezera. The problem is, that determination is often non-trivial to make. Where is the end-quote -- is the explanation part of the quote of the wording of the gezeira, or the gemara's explanation of its purpose stated and stated after the quote? We discussed this idea many years ago, when I proposed this was the root of the machloqes about basar kafui. Very related is that it is also sometimes unclear when something is a pesaq in existing law, and when a gezeira. If it's a pesaq, then applicability is built in whether or not it's stated. Pesaqim only hold if the situation is materially the same. What the gemara says about putting out a burning house on Shabbos wouldn't apply to a wood-frame house in an urban or most suburban settings because the risk to life is simply different. Like the Peri Chadash vs the Chasam Sofer about chalav yisrael; the PC says CY is a pesaq, so he has little problem saying that CY is moot when there is other disincentive to adulterating the milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness http://www.aishdas.org/asp which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost Author: Widen Your Tent again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Jul 7 14:44:42 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 21:44:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Risk Reward Message-ID: <1594171681704.0f3bd39e3250de82@aishdas.org> A note I wrote To a pulpit rabbi: I strongly support a recent discussion concerning return to synagogue. I do have to say that there's one point that I deeply disagree on. Maybe it's a matter of nuance that cannot be communicated in trying times to the general public. I don't believe that flattening the curve has no halachic import. In fact as a community we are always making this kind of trade off. If not why wouldn't we spend every dollar we have on improving public health. The answer per R' Schachter and R' Weiss is that's the way the world operates. Bottom line risk reward tradeoffs are often very difficult. Personally I'd prefer we be more open and honest about them and have public discussion but realize that may not be practical So what is the halachic philosophy of risk/reward? perhaps a starting point The cohain gadol and the alternates for himself or wife on Yom Kippur? Kt Joel Rich From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 19:15:59 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 22:15:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Francis Collins on Science and Religion Message-ID: <20200708021559.GA27334@aishdas.org> An interview with Dr. Francis Collins (an Obama appointee now most famous for being Dr. Anthony Fauci's boss). https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/anthony-faucis-boss-on-why-things-could-be-much-better-soon.html Three snippets that are on topic for our group, but there is more discussion of G-d there than this: "I was an atheist when I entered medical school. I was a Christian when I left and it was much driven by this experience of trying to integrate the reductionist aspects of science into the much more fundamental issues I saw my patients wrestling with, like is there a God and does God care about me and what happens after I die? "Those are uncomfortable questions for an atheist 23-year-old, but ultimately they became totally compelling and required some investigation and some answers. Ultimately, out of that, it came to me that it makes a lot more sense to believe in God than to deny God's existence. A scientist isn't supposed to make assertions that you would call universal negatives, because you can never have enough evidence to do that, and yet that's what atheism calls you to do. ... "Similarly, the way that some people have caricatured science as a threat to God, that doesn't resemble the science that I'm doing. It's been a terrible, I think, consequence of our last century or so that this polarization has been accepted as inevitable when I see it not at all in that light. There are many interesting scientific questions that tap into the kind of area that you're asking about, like what is the neuroscientific basis of consciousness? What is the neuroscientific basis of a spiritual experience? If there is such a neuroscientific basis, does that make this spiritual experience less meaningful or more so? Those are fun conversations to have." "... What is our future? I don't want to see a future where this science-versus-faith conflict leads to a winner and a loser. If science wins and faith loses, we end up with a purely technological society that has lost its moorings and foundation for morality. I think that could be a very harsh and potentially violent outcome. But I don't want to see a society either where the argument that science is not to be trusted because it doesn't agree with somebody's interpretation of a Bible verse wins out. That forces us back into a circumstance where many of the gifts that God has given us through intellectual curiosity and the tools of science have to be put away. "So I want to see a society that flourishes by bringing these worldviews together by being careful about which worldview is most likely to give you the truth, depending on the question you're asking." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole http://www.aishdas.org/asp heart, your entire soul, and all you own." Author: Widen Your Tent Love is not two who look at each other, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:30:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714183052.GC21268@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:40:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate > dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), > as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will > be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised > (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- > r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? I'm uncomfortable with your formulation, but I think I agree with your point. As microelectronics become more embedded in society, it's harder to consider their use uvda dechol. So pesaqim ought change. In RMF's case.... What changed over time was not whether a given fact was uvda dechol. He assumed that use of a timer would pose mar'is ayin issues, and that metzi'us changed. A close parallel, but not exactly the same. And yes, it could well be the tzibbur who make that point known to the posqim. (Especially today, when the gedolim we look to for pesaq often are men who never left yeshiva life. As opposed to the previous generations when we looked to the town's rav for pesaqim.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward http://www.aishdas.org/asp by patting yourself on the back. Author: Widen Your Tent -Anonymous - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:30:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714183052.GC21268@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:40:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate > dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), > as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will > be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised > (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- > r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? I'm uncomfortable with your formulation, but I think I agree with your point. As microelectronics become more embedded in society, it's harder to consider their use uvda dechol. So pesaqim ought change. In RMF's case.... What changed over time was not whether a given fact was uvda dechol. He assumed that use of a timer would pose mar'is ayin issues, and that metzi'us changed. A close parallel, but not exactly the same. And yes, it could well be the tzibbur who make that point known to the posqim. (Especially today, when the gedolim we look to for pesaq often are men who never left yeshiva life. As opposed to the previous generations when we looked to the town's rav for pesaqim.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward http://www.aishdas.org/asp by patting yourself on the back. Author: Widen Your Tent -Anonymous - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:21:12 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Yehareig velo ya'avor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I posted on this issue here and on another list: >> If a Ben Noach [Noahide, i.e. non-Jew] is being forced to abrogate >> one of his 7 mitzvot... > I received this [from Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter]: >> If you accept the authority of Rambam, this is black-letter law. See Sefer >> Shoftim, Hilkhoth Mlakhim UMilxmotheyhem, Chapter 10, Paragraph 2: "A Ben-Noax >> who is compelled to violate one of his commandments is allowed to do so > Thanks for the cite! If you check out the mishneh lmelech there For those who didn't look, it's at: https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rtype=%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98&mfid=104611&rid=15005 > he refers > to the parshat drachim derech atarim (drasha #2) who makes exactly the > argument I proposed as why a ben noach would be required to give up his > life rather than kill someone. But also says "debishfichus damim mitzvah haben-noach sheyeihareig ve'al ya'avor". By making it about "mai chazis" it isn't about the 7 mitzvos in general, or even the other two mitzvos that for Jews are yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Rather, because the only question is who dies, not the comparative values are life vs obedience. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation http://www.aishdas.org/asp -- just think of an incurable disease such as Author: Widen Your Tent inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:25:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:25:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:38:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger wrote: >> But in general, there is an increasing reluctance to pasqen in >> some circles. Whether Brisker chumeros or the MB's advice to >> either play safe in some places or avoid the question in another. >> So, we're seeing more and more of it. > I spent a couple of minutes trying to think of examples of this phenomenon, > and I ended up agreeing that this *seems* to be more common in hilchos > brachos... > However, in most other areas of halacha, it's not a choice of this or that. > It's a question of issur and heter. (Or of chiyuv and not.) In such cases, > "avoiding the situation" tends to be synonymous with "being machmir".... I would agree for the "defy the question" pesaqim being more common in hilkhos berakhos. But I don't see Brisker chumeros or baal nefesh yachmir being more of a berakhah thing. Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of safeiq would be lehaqeil. My largely implied question was how to save this reluctance to pasqen from accusations of lack of faith in the entire concept of pesaq and deciding halakhah. Nu, so for the Briskers, I takeh think they don't believe that a pesaq settles the din anymore. As the Rambam put it, Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah. But for the CC and the rest of us? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; http://www.aishdas.org/asp Experience comes from bad decisions. Author: Widen Your Tent - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From zev at sero.name Tue Jul 14 12:29:37 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Yehareig velo ya'avor In-Reply-To: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> References: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <27345b4a-f329-cfd4-8b0f-8b8be1147f72@sero.name> >> Thanks for the cite! If you check out the mishneh lmelech there > > For those who didn't look, it's at: > https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rtype=%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98&mfid=104611&rid=15005 > >> he refers >> to the parshat drachim derech atarim (drasha #2) who makes exactly the >> argument I proposed as why a ben noach would be required to give up his >> life rather than kill someone. > > But also says "debishfichus damim mitzvah haben-noach sheyeihareig ve'al > ya'avor". By making it about "mai chazis" it isn't about the 7 mitzvos > in general, or even the other two mitzvos that for Jews are yeihareig > ve'al ya'avor. Rather, because the only question is who dies, not the > comparative values are life vs obedience. Thank you. However if the Rambam agreed with this it's odd that he didn't say so. And the svara against it seems fairly simple: Yisrael are commanded in kiddush haShem; we're expected to sometimes put obedience ahead of our lives. Therefore when considering for which mitzvos we must do so, the svara of "mai chazis" compels us to include this. It wouldn't make sense to say that for AZ we must be moser nefesh, but for shfichas damim we needn't. But for Bnei Noach the whole concept of mesirus nefesh doesn't exist. They are never expected to do that; we have an explicit pasuk that they're even allowed to serve AZ rather than die. So how can we tell them to sacrifice themselves for mai chazis? On the contrary, they will tell you exactly mai chazina -- this is my life and that is his. To *me* my life is more important than his, just as I expect that to *him* his life is more important than mine. Just as I would give my life to save my children, because theirs are more important to me than mine, so I will give your life to save mine, because mine is more important to me than yours. It's only once the principle that there is something higher than survival is established that we can extend it with mai chazis. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Tue Jul 14 12:55:07 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:55:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <722273ba-58af-d192-57ea-032a8f9cd3e5@sero.name> On 14/7/20 2:25 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Nu, so for the Briskers, I takeh think they don't believe that a pesaq > settles the din anymore. As the Rambam put it, Rav Ashi veRavina sof > hora'ah. Or, they believe in psak in principle, but not in their own ability to pasken, and they're not too sure about your ability either, or his or his or his. But I think there's also a good helping of the gemara's statement that a baal nefesh doesn't eat meat on which a psak was required; as the proverb goes, "a shayla macht treif". Only if the heter is found explicitly in the sources, so that no reasoning was needed can one eat the meat without any qualms. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 03:25:38 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 06:25:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue Message-ID: . R" Micha Berger wrote: > Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't > which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because > there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of > safeiq would be lehaqeil. Safeiq "rather than" pesaq?? Can the two be differentiated? Isn't psak *based* on safek, trying to figure out where Truth resides? > My largely implied question was how to save this reluctance to > pasqen from accusations of lack of faith in the entire concept > of pesaq and deciding halakhah. As I see it, it's not that we have a lack of *faith* in psak, but that we're so confused about how it works. And especially, how it works nowadays when there's no Sanhedrin. To me, the classic case in bitul is bitul b'rov. Does the minority really lose its identity to the point that all pieces can be eaten by a single person at one time? Or is it only a procedural psak, such that we are fearful for each item, and they must be shared among several people, or eaten by one person at different times, etc etc. And it carries through to psak too. Can I really ignore the minority opinion? Without a Sanhedrin to actually discuss and vote, how can I be sure that the other camp is wrong? And so, just as we "avoided the issue" by having several people share the probably-kosher items, we also "avoid the issue" in psak by finding a situation where we don't choose between the several opinions. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 15 02:48:25 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:48:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] action or results? Message-ID: There are four identical quadruplets brothers, Robert, Simon, Larry and Judah. Robert , Larry and Simon are all asymptomatic carriers of the corona virus but Judah is not. The local law and rabbinic authorities require wearing a mask when going out in public but none of them do. The four brothers are not clearly identifiable, when seen, as orthodox Jews but are so known by the public. They all go outside to identical public events where their identities are not known. Robert infects a number of people but he's never identified as the source of the infection. Larry infects a number of people and is identified as a source of infection in the media. Judah never infects anybody and neither does Simon. What shows up on each brothers' permanent record card in shamayim? Is it multidimensional? 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 JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 15 02:50:41 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? 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 zev at sero.name Wed Jul 15 07:03:18 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5622a8f8-7434-2f3e-086c-d0052a01ff28@sero.name> On 15/7/20 5:50 am, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required to > give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol > worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching > theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and > not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? I don't believe there is. These three are not worse than other sins. E.g. murder is only an issur hereg, and is therefore *less* severe than any issur skila and sreifa. So the term "Big 3" is a misnomer; they're in the category for being big. And they didn't all get in to the category in the same way. Avoda Zara comes from the pasuk "venikdashti". Murder comes in from the svara of "mai chazis". And all the arayos come in because of the pasuk that compares eshes ish to murder, so they are included in the "mai chazis" even though that svara doesn't apply to them! Which is very strange. Then there are other mitzvos that also *obviously* override pikuach nefesh, so obviously that they don't need to be listed, such as milchemes mitzvah. (For that matter, since one is required to go even to a milchemes hareshus if the king conscripts one, that too must override pikuach nefesh. And obviously war overrides venishmartem.) Bris also involves a certain level of risk, and historically it was just accepted that a certain number of babies will die from it, and that we have to accept this. So to that extent it also overrides pikuach nefesh, until the risk rises high enough to change that. Losing one child obviously increases the probability of there being a genetic defect in the family, and yet it is not enough to cancel future brissen in that family. Only a second loss does that. Then we have a pasuk that earning a living justifies taking certain risks with ones life; while I wouldn't call this overriding pikuach nefesh or venishmartem, it obviously puts a limit on those principles that many people don't consciously acknowledge. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 15:13:54 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200715221354.GF8072@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:50:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required > to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol > worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching > theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and > not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? One is the greatest violation of Torah, one of Avodah, and one of Gemilus Chassadim. AZ as the inverse of Avodah and Murder as the inverse of Gema"ch shouldn't need elaboration. As for arayos... In the Maharal's commentary on that mishnah, he describes the three amudei olam as a relationship with one's soul, with G-d and with other people. Torah perfects the relatiosionship with oneself. Whereas someone who pursues arayos turns that self into a menuval. Torah is about perfection of the mind, middos and the rest of the soul. Arayos is about giving up on all that and just answering to the body. Living cannot be at the expense of an axe to a pillar one's life stands on. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of http://www.aishdas.org/asp greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, Author: Widen Your Tent in fact, of our modesty. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 05:42:49 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 08:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required > to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of > idol worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one > overarching theme that links these three transgressions that explains > why these and not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? If there's an overarching theme, I haven't found it yet. I have tried to find the reason for each of these three, what makes them different than the other 610, and I've come up with very different answers for each of them. If I'm not mistaken, murder is the only one for which the Gemara gives an explicit reason. If my life is at stake, and the only solution is at the cost of someone else's life, who's to say that my blood is redder? Simple math. Or simple logic, your choice. Next is avodah zara. I came up with this answer myself, so I eagerly welcome any comments about it. My logic is like this: An inventive mind can come up with all sorts of justifications for violating mitzvos in extreme circumstances. "Violate this Shabbos so he will keep many other Shabbosos," for example. Eliyahu built a bamah on Har Carmel, because he knew it would lead to Kiddush Hashem. But Avoda Zara is the sort of thing where - by definition - the means NEVER justify the ends. There is NO situation in which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be Kiddush Hashem. It's a contradiction in terms. Even the opportunity to do mitzvos for the rest of my life can't justify an actual Avodah Zara today. (I'm not talking about where someone merely pretends to do Avodah Zara; that's a more complicated topic and might be justified by some poskim in some cases.) But to actually do real Avodah Zara is treason against Hashem and never allowed. That leaves Arayos. This is a very strange halacha, especially to the general culture arounds us, which accepts these acts (when done by consenting adults) as victimless pleasures, not capital crimes. Non-logical chukim. So why is it that we must avoid these acts, even at the cost of our lives? Doesn't make sense. The tentative answer I've come up with is that this halacha is meant to help insure solid family life. Society around us is falling apart, and many people think that one of the causes is that too many children grow up without strong family values. It is merely my guess, but I can't help but suspect that this is why Hashem made Arayos so very very assur, to impress this value upon us. Even if (lo aleinu) a situation actually arises, and a person is tempted to rationalize that he can do this aveirah today and live to do mitzvos tomorrow, it is still not worth it. That's the message of the severity of this halacha. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hanktopas at gmail.com Sun Jul 19 06:59:31 2020 From: hanktopas at gmail.com (Henry Topas) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 09:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: Recently, I have heard of some shuls beginning Shabbat morning davening at Nishmat or even at Shochayn Ad. This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the same Sha'tz conclude what he started? Kol tuv, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 00:59:57 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:59:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan Message-ID: Just catching up and the message from R' Joel Rich on Sun, 24 May 2020 caught my eye. RJJ wrote: > In the case of the woman putting on a tallis without tzitzis- there > was no real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis > - ie fulfil the mitzvah (except her rabbi told her not to), so why > would you be satisfied with second best. I'm not so sure about the "no real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis" part. In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar could cause carrying in a public domain. Along those lines one could argue that a tallis may also cause one to carry in the public domain if not tied properly, or strings break off, etc. Just a thought, - Danny From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Jul 20 07:02:26 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:02:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when > we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed > by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as > the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the > same Sha'tz conclude what he started? See S"A O"C 53:3 (Shatz vs. tzibbur) https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Orach_Chayim.53.3 She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, Joel Rich From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 11:26:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:59:57AM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: > In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. > > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. ... In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! So, I'm not sure why the HM needs to invoke the risk of an aveirah. Lo zakhisi lehavin. And more to our point, the lack of berakhah doesn't seem to me to prove the mitzvah itself should be avoided because it means some risk exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but the lighting of a fire. Author: Widen Your Tent - W.B. Yeats - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From cbkaufman at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 13:58:38 2020 From: cbkaufman at gmail.com (Brent Kaufman) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:58:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 (4) Message-ID: There are actually 4 big ones that one must voluntarily give one's life rather than transgress. A person is obligated to die rather than transgress any mitzvah in the Torah if one is being forced to do so publicly during a time of shmad. The Rambam lists this, but I didn't check before writing this, for its exact reference. chaimbaruch kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 19:12:11 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 22:12:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: . I wrote: > But Avoda Zara is the sort of thing where - by definition - > the means NEVER justify the ends. There is NO situation in > which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be Kiddush > Hashem. It's a contradiction in terms. I made a typing error there. What I had intended to write was: "There is NO situation in which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be *L'Shem Shamayim*. It's a contradiction in terms." It's not difficult to imagine situations (or cite historical incidents) where someone might do an aveirah L'Shem Shamayim. But that's for the other 612. It seems to me categorically impossible for someone to do actual Avoda Zara (as opposed to merely going through the motions, which is also assur, but *possibly* not yehareg v'al yaavor) for L'Shem Shamayim reasons. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 05:41:45 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:41:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: > This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when > we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed > by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as > the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the > same Sha'tz conclude what he started? I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. E.g.: We learned in a Mishna in Brachos that if the Shat"z cannot continue, a substitute continues where he left off. More common: Aveilim often switch Shat"z at Ashrei - the 2nd one saying Kadish Tiskabal (may our prayers be accepted) even though the first one said the actual Amida that this is going on. In your case, both congregants will be saying both opening and closing Brachot - so I'm not even sure what you're asking. Kol Tuv - Danny From doniels at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 05:34:42 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:34:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> References: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB commented on my thought: > In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos > that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To > the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem > in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! That's THIS VERY Rambam. > So, I'm not sure why the HM needs to invoke the risk of an aveirah. Lo > zakhisi lehavin. > > And more to our point, the lack of berakhah doesn't seem to me to prove > the mitzvah itself should be avoided because it means some risk exists. My mistake for getting you mixed up. The HM isn't commenting on Tzitzis - that part is my "chiddush"... that there's a "good reason" why women didn't wear Tzitzis over the generations. The HM was commenting IIUC why the Rambam talks about women wearing Tzitzis but not Tefillin. I can't find the HM on Sefria, or I'd link to it. Kol Tuv - Danny From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Tue Jul 21 12:08:22 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:08:22 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan Message-ID: <000001d65f92$4e243cf0$ea6cb6d0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:59:57AM +0300 RDS wrote: > In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. > > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. And then RMB responded: <> We need to back up here. There is a fundamental machlokus in the gemora between Rabbi Yehuda (supported by Rabbi Meir), and Rabbi Yossi (supported by Rabbi Shimon) as to whether women are permitted to perform mitzvos aseh she hzman grama - from which they are exempt. Rabbi Yossi says "reshus" - ie they are allowed. Rabbi Yehuda says no, it is assur for women to perform mitzvos asseh shehazman grama. And there are two explanations given for Rabbi Yehuda forbidding women performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. The first (eg by Rashi) is of Bal Tosif. That is, if the Torah says women are exempt from performing certain mitzvos, then for them to go ahead and perform them would violate the principle of bal tosif. However, most rishonim argue that bal tosif does not make sense here, and therefore most rishonim, including those who posken like Rabbi Yehuda, do so not under the principle of bal tosif, but under a principle that can be called "halachic counter-pressure". That is, even Rabbi Yehuda did not forbid all women from doing acts that constitute mitzvos (such as sitting in a sukkah on Sukkos, which, if you follow the bal tosif principle would be ossur for a women to do), but only where there are halachic counter-pressures, and the Haagahos Maimoniyos is quoting some of the halachic counter-pressures that the rishonim discuss. As we all know, we posken (both Sephardim (via the Shulchan Aruch) and Ashkenazim (via the Rema)), like Rabbi Yossi, that women *may* perform mitzvos aseh shehazman grama, and this Rambam is one of the bases for the way the Shulchan Aruch poskens. However: a) there are a significant number of rishonim who posken like Rabbi Yehuda; and b)even within Rabbi Yossi, there are those who say that Rabbi Yossi only permits where the halachic counter-pressure is something less than a Torah prohibition. If, like the Rambam, you holds that saying a bracha sheino tzricha is a Torah violation, and you hold according to this view in Rabbi Yossi, you end up with the Rambam's position. If you follow Tosfos (Ri and Rabbanu Tam), who holds that saying a bracha sheino tzricha is merely a rabbinic prohibition, then following Rabbi Yossi t would be pushed aside in the circumstance of a woman performing a mitzvah that is a reshus. So holds the Rema. For various talks I have given on this, I have drawn up the following diagrams - I don't know if they will come out in the digest form, but I think people find them useful to understand some of the complexity. [RMB, is there some way of embedding these in the digest?] If you don't get them, I am happy to email them separately. Bottom line there are a lot of rishonim who did not hold like Rabbi Yossi, and this is reflected in, inter alia, the discussion regarding tzitzis. Because while the Tur, following his father the Rosh and the Rabbanu Tam/Ran happily permit women to make blessings over shofar and lulav, he says in Tur Orech Chaim Hilchot Tzitzit siman 17 ".And the Rambam writes that they may wrap without a blessing, and he is going in his position that explains that women are not able to bless on something from which they are exempt but Rabbanu Tam writes that they are able to bless even though they are exempt and it is better that they do not bless ..". And the Bach, picking up on this seeming contradiction says (Bach Orech Chaim Siman 17) On "And it is better that they do not bless"; There is to ask from that which he writes in siman 589 in connection with shofar that even though women are exempt they are able to blow and to bless and one should not protest. And it seems to me that it seems from here that in connection with tzitzis that it is not the custom for women to wear, and to bless, if so if a woman comes to ask ab initio if it is permitted to dress in tzitzis and to bless he should say to her that she should not bless because it is better that they should not bless given the disagreement of our rabbis but with shofar where they are already accustomed to blow and to bless they do not protest since they have on whom to rely but if they come to ask ab initio also with shofar you should say to them that they should not bless and we should rely on what was written here regarding tzitzis and this is the law [also] regarding shofar." But, it seems to me, to understand this portion, it is necessary to fully understand the depth of rishonic opposition to women performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. The Hagahios Maymoniyos was one of a number of Ashkenazi rishonim who disagreed with Rabbanu Tam/Ri/Ran and held one should posken like Rabbi Yehuda. Regards Chana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 19942 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.png Type: image/png Size: 21255 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.png Type: image/png Size: 20358 bytes Desc: not available URL: From simon.montagu at mail.gmail.com Tue Jul 21 03:40:33 2020 From: simon.montagu at mail.gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:40:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:59 PM Danny Schoemann wrote: > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. What mitzva couldn't potentially cause an aveira, including ones which women do aliba dekhulei alma? Bad timing in candle-lighting could cause hillul shabbat. On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 9:34 PM Micha Berger wrote: > In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos > that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To > the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem > in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! As I may have noted before, the general trend among Sepharadi aharonim is to follow RT against the SA and Rambam, and say that women at least can, and IIIRC davka _should_ make berachot on these mitzvot. ROY, kedarko bakodesh, insists on following Maran. From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 22 02:56:47 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:56:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?God=92s_existence?= Message-ID: Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all. I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience. It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place I?m not sure that came out as clearly as I might?ve liked but I hope you get the general idea. Thoughts? She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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 bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 22 12:57:46 2020 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:57:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A couple of points relevant to the 'big 3'. Firstly, as has been noted, they are not the only situations of yeihareig v'al yaavor. In addition to the situation of sha'as ha'shmad, the yerushalmi notes that mitzvos bein adam l'chaveiro are also YVAY. Like theft. And I believe we pasken that way. BUT that's not to diminish their uniqueness as YVAY mitzvos. They are mentioned in targum yonasan as a discrete set of YVAY mitzvos, I noticed in the last couple of weeks while doing chad targum. Although I couldn't find it again when I looked. That does mean the derivation in the Bavli is way after the din was already known, by a few hundred years at the least. And points to a much more them being a much more fundamental set of 3 with an early origin in halacha. In response to RZS's point about there being no obvious connection between them, that may well be exactly because they represent the extremes of three different branches of avoda, per the Maharal, and their only connection being that they are all archetypes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 23 08:21:33 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:21:33 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: <002001d66104$f2fb7ea0$d8f27be0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RAM wrote: In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this is the one I want to ask about.) > The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation of > Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana (danger). > Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the Mishnah, shuls > were located outside of the cities where it was not safe to be alone > at night. The Rabbis were concerned that people who came late to shul > might be left alone while finishing to daven. To give latecomers a > chance to catch up and finish davening with everyone else, Chazal > extended the davening by adding Mei'ein Sheva. <> And RAF suggested: <> However it seems to me that this does not answer RAM's question, as the point RAM makes is that Me'en Sheva is a very short additional prayer, and doesn't seem to make much difference one way or the other. Can I make a different suggestion (but again only a suggestion). I have been looking at something called Teshuvat HaGeonim HaChadashot, which, according to Bar Ilan (which is where I sourced it) was published by Simcha Emanuel in Jerusalem, 1995, from a manuscript in the Baron Gunzberg library includes previously unpublished geonic responsa, as well as the writings of early proven?al scholars. In it, in a discussion on the nature of kaddish found at siman 35, the presumably Gaonic author explains the locations of all the kaddishim and after explaining where they are in relation to Shachrit and Mincha (and why) he says ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? +?' ????? ??, ?+ ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? [???] ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??[?]? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????. " And after the blessings of reciting the shema of arvit because the prayer of arvit is reshut [Brachot 27b] and perhaps a person will go out from the synagogue after they finish the blessings of emet v?emunah and will not pray there with ten, and it will be that he will go out without kaddish." That is, there was a genuine concern that because arvit was reshut, people might come to say shema together, and then leave, hence the kaddish after shema and before shmonei esrei of arvit. Now, if that was a genuine concern, then maybe that also explains me'in sheva (especially if you understand me'in sheva as requiring, or at least being ideally, said with the community as a whole). Maybe the point is that a latecomer, given that arvit is reshut, was likely simply to say shema and its blessings and not bother to say shmone esrei at all but simply walk out. However with the incentive of saying me'in sheva together with the rest of the congregation, and with other people prepared to wait for him so that the me'en sheva would be communal, he would actually daven shmonei esrei in the presence of the minyan, so that he could then say me'en sheva with it. >Akiva Miller Kind regards Chana From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 23 09:34:09 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:34:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: <003001d6610f$17ad5ed0$47081c70$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: <> I should have pointed out that this particular teshuva was signed by Rav Avraham ben Rav Yitzchak - and given that he references "a few Geonim" and "other Geonim", later in the piece, it is more likely to be someone like Abraham ben Isaac de Narbonne (1110-1179), so more of a Rishon than a Gaon, despite the name of the compilation. Kind regards Chana From wolberg at yebo.co.za Sun Jul 26 09:36:50 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 18:36:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan 32:76 Message-ID: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> [AhS Yomi for yesterday covered OC 32:73-79. https://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi -mi] Loved the line: ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? -- ??? ??? ????? ???? ???. [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." -mi] Any comment on it? From zev at sero.name Sun Jul 26 16:10:19 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:10:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan 32:76 In-Reply-To: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> References: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> Message-ID: <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> On 26/7/20 12:36 pm, wolberg--- via Avodah wrote: > [AhS Yomi for yesterday covered OC 32:73-79. https://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi > -mi] > > Loved the line: ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? -- ??? ??? ????? ???? ???. > [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- > ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. > > [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts > about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." > -mi] > > Any comment on it? I think "yeseros" here means "superfluous", rather than merely "additional". Of course that begs the question, but I think that in general it's a statement of principle, not a rule for practice, though in this instance the AhS gives his opinion on what is superfluous. (I'd also translate "ein daas chachomim nocha meihem" less literally, as "Torah authorities do not approve of them", or even, riskily, "Daas Torah does not approve of them".) -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:50:00 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daas Chachamim Noachah Heimenu In-Reply-To: <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> References: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200727105000.GA9656@aishdas.org> In translating a Hebrew quote posted to the list, I wrote: >> [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- >> ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. >> >> [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts >> about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." >> -mi] On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 07:10:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > (I'd also translate "ein daas chachomim nocha meihem" less literally, as > "Torah authorities do not approve of them", or even, riskily, "Daas Torah > does not approve of them".) I was always taught something along the lines of your first version. I think it was R Yaakov Haber that I heard this from, but the idiom could equally have been intended to me something more like (loosely) "... isn't thinking with daas Torah". I found the argument compelling enough to try to offer both translations. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From driceman at optimum.net Mon Jul 27 07:36:27 2020 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?God=E2=80=99s_existence?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> RJR: > > Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all. > I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah > We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience. > > It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al > > In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place I haven?t read RAL?s essay (link?), but doesn?t RYhL use this idea at the beginning of the Kuzari, a generation before the Rambam? David Riceman From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Jul 27 09:04:15 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:04:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?God=E2=80=99s_existence?= In-Reply-To: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> References: , <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> Message-ID: <1E4BB098-3996-4C02-9BE1-6CA8B3672151@Segalco.com> I haven?t read RAL?s essay (link?), https://www.etzion.org.il/en/source-faith-faith-itself 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:14:27 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:14:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727201427.GC12492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 06:25:38AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R" Micha Berger wrote: >> Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't >> which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because >> there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of >> safeiq would be lehaqeil. > Safeiq "rather than" pesaq?? Can the two be differentiated? Isn't psak > *based* on safek, trying to figure out where Truth resides? Not safeiq rather than pesaq, "rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq". More reliance on safeiq deOraisa lehachmir, safeiq derabbanan lequlah -- unless efshar levareir / it's easy enough to be machmir. Of course, a baal nefesh may have a different definition of "easy enough". As opposed to looking to which shitah is stated by the gadol bekhochmah uveminyan (minyan rabbanim, rav with bigger following [looking at the Rambam or the Rosh...]), the logic of the sevara behind each possible pesaq, looking to see which pesaq was apparently accepted for how long and how broadly, hefsed meruba, kavod haberios... You know, the rules of pesaq. These latter kind of rules tend to be invoked less often than in the past. I think it comes from the Gra's position on the comparative unreality of pesaq after Rav Ashi and Ravina, taking the Rambam's "sof hora'ah" quite literally. Picked up by the Soloveitchiks, and with the popularity of Brisk among those who pasqen today... Add to that the whole concept of lomdus. Whether Brisker or other derakhim. When you value sevara much more than the other factors posqim have to balance, and you learn how to explain the sevara of all sides of a machloqes... There are fewer times the remaining rules of pesaq rise to the level of giving a clear answer. My latter two paragraphs feed into: > As I see it, it's not that we have a lack of *faith* in psak, but that > we're so confused about how it works. And especially, how it works nowadays > when there's no Sanhedrin. But we seem to disagree mostly on description rather than content: > And it carries through to psak too. Can I really ignore the minority > opinion? Without a Sanhedrin to actually discuss and vote, how can I be > sure that the other camp is wrong? ... "How can I be sure" IS a lack of faith in our ability to pasqen, as I would use the terms. Maybe the insecurity comes from a lack of surity we know how to do it right. I would still call it a lack of faith. If you don't think pesaq can be done the way the Rif, the Rambam, the Tur, the SA, the Levush, etc... did, that their precedent doesn't tell you how to decide which of the eilu va'eilu should become halakhah lemaaseh, that lack of faith in how to do pesaq has scary implications. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:19:21 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:19:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] action or results? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727201921.GD12492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:48:25AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > There are four identical quadruplets brothers, Robert, Simon, Larry and > Judah. Robert , Larry and Simon are all asymptomatic carriers of the > corona virus but Judah is not... > They all go outside to identical public events where their identities are > not known. Robert infects... > What shows up on each brothers' permanent record card in shamayim? Is > it multidimensional? Rachmana liba ba'i. Their records show each one's lack of concern for other's safety. Consequences, if they are correlated at all and some other aspect of hashgachah doesn't overwhelm this rule, megalgelim chov al yedei chayav. Which implies that who gets whom sick would at most be *indicative* of guilt for this or other deeds, not the actual thing he is guilty of. A person isn't judged for the results of their actions, or even for their actions themselves. (So, I'm denying both sides of the question in the subject line.) A person is judged "ba'asher hu sham" -- what kind of changes those decisions and actions made in themselves. I would take it for granted it's multidimensional. The person's "permanent record card" is their own soul. And the effects of their actions can improve one thing about the soul while damaging something else about it. A comparatively easy example is tact. a person can make a person that makes them more truthful, but gains that Emes at the expense of their drive for Shalom. And even without the previous paragraphs, Hashem isn't a Vatra -- the person will get the Tov that a more Emesdik soul has a beis qibbul for, and get less of the Tov that comes with losing some passion for Shalom. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:00:57 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727210057.GF12492@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: >> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when >> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed >> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as >> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the >> same Sha'tz conclude what he started? > I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. I called it an office, not the occupent. But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same idea. I have a theory why: I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a *shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:54:22 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:54:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] God's existence In-Reply-To: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> References: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20200727205422.GE12492@aishdas.org> RDR mentioned the Kuzari before I found the time to reply. I think what changed was in the discipline of philosophy. In the days of the rishonim, Philosophy was itself a kind of religion. Look at the opening paragraphs of ch. 1 of the Kuzari -- the king's survey includes a Philosopher (1:1), a Muslim, a Christian, and then the chaver. A Jewish Philosopher was a Scholasticist. Such that Rihal, even though the Kuzari is a book of philosophy as we now use the term, saw himself as anti-Philosophy. Then came the scientific method and people realizing the power and limitations of testing things empirically. The tensions between the Empiricists, who trusted these methods, and the Idealists, who wanted all knowledge to be as sound as Math, coming from self-evident postulates. And then the Kantian Revolution through to Existentialism and now Post-Modernism, etc... Philosophy less based on a confidence of being able to prove what's out there and more focused on describing the world as experienced. I argued here a few years back that this is what drove the popularity of universal hashgachah peratis. It's less a break from how rishonim understood HP than looking at a different topic. To the rishonim, a discussion of HP is all about its contrast to nature, randomness, bechirah chofshi, etc... Nowadays, the discussion of HP is about what it is we have bitachon in, how much hishatadlus do we need to invest given that what happens is decided by hashgachah... R Yehudah haLevi had a lack of faith in the idea that we can decisively prove that's really out there. That's for Greeks, who lack the more sure source of data -- mesorah. (1:13, 1:63) That mesorah part isn't very Modern in terms of the discipline of philosophy, but not believing we can ever really prove anything... Well, take this quote from 1:13: "Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved." Sounds downright Post-Modern! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Jul 28 19:19:28 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 22:19:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why did Chazal cancel shiva bc of Yom tov Message-ID: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> Many have recently written how they have missed the full traditional comforting process of shiva due to corona restrictions. That has reawakened in me the question of why did Chazal cancel shiva because of Yom tov? If the catharsis and process of shiva is so comforting and desirable for mourners, why did they take that away because of YT and not simply postpone till after YT. It's hard to say that after YT the shiva experience w be no longer necessary or needed. I saw someone suggest that "The souls of those who passed away now with abbreviated burials and shivas were so pure they ascended directly to heaven and did not require traditional mourning rituals." That is hard to hear because shiva (and YT cancelling shiva) is a rabbinic creation. Suggestions? Mordechai Cohen macohen613 at gmail.com From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 29 03:10:38 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:10:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why did Chazal cancel shiva bc of Yom tov In-Reply-To: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> References: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: That has reawakened in me the question of why did Chazal cancel shiva because of Yom tov? ====================================== As one who sat shiva at the cemetery on erev Pesach, I tried to keep in mind R'YBS's insight into true simcha as being lfnai hashem (which is what we're supposed to be on shalosh regalim). Seeing it through HKB"H's eyes it's all good (we are human and so don't experience it as such). So: She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, which will allow us all to see more clearly 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 micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:37 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 11:02:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Crazy Snakes and Dogs Message-ID: <20200730150237.GA14405@aishdas.org> We repeatedly discussed RYBS's statement that toothpaste is not ra'ui la'akhilas kelev and therefore doesn't need a hekhsher to be KLP. Not where I intended to go, but I should note that we never discussed the actual core issue -- the limits of the principle of achshevei. Since toothpaste is flavored, one could argue it does apply. RMF (IG OC 2:92), ROY (YD 2:60), the Tzitz Eliezer (10:25), says it does not apply when the flavored item isn't being eaten for the sake of the flavor. Excluding medicine -- and the same argument applies to toothpaste. The CI (OC 116:8) limits achshevei to spoiled chameitz, and not to mixtures containing chameitz. The "only" machmir about applying achshevei to medicines that I know of is the She'agas Aryeh (75). Now, back to the topic I did intent to post about.... So, the story goes (version taken from R Chaim Jachter at https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/cosmetics-and-toiletries-for-pesach-part-three-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter ): A charming anecdote that occurred in Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's Shiur at Yeshiva University in the 1970's (reported by Rav Yosef Adler and many others) is often cited in support of the common practice to be lenient. The Rav stated in Shiur that toothpaste is not Ra'ui Liachilat Kelev (unfit for canine consumption) and thus one is permitted to consume it on Pesach even if it contains Chametz. The next day in Shiur a student raised his hand and explained that he conducted an "experiment" the night before. He related that he placed toothpaste in his dog's feeding bowl to see if his dog would eat it -- and indeed, the dog ate the toothpaste!! Rav Soloveitchik simply responded, "Your dog is crazy." This story illustrates the ruling that we cited last week from Rav Soloveitchik that the standards of edibility are not determined by aberrant behavior. R Pesach Sommer recently found Tosefta Terumos 7:13, which is more famously available on Chullin 49b. It /has/ to be what RYBS was thinking of. The gemara says: Detanya: 5 [liquids] do not have [the prohibition] of gilui: brine, vinegar, oil, honey and fish gravy. Rabbi Shimon says: I saw a snake drink fish brine in Tzidon! They said to him: That [snake] was a shetaya, and one doesn't bring a proof from shotim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From hanktopas at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 20:29:43 2020 From: hanktopas at gmail.com (Henry Topas) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 23:29:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: >> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when >> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed >> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as >> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the >> same Sha'tz conclude what he started? > I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. I called it an office, not the occupent. But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same idea. I have a theory why: I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a *shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post! -Micha Shavua Tov, Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue for Kaddish Shalem? Thank you and Kol Tuv, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 02:36:36 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 12:36:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Henry Topas wrote: > > Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach > of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for > Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or > officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that > reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue > for Kaddish Shalem? What you describe is nothing I've found in the written Poskim. Where I grew up (various Yekkishe Kehiloth) the Ovel was "off the hook" when Hallel was recited. I see this being done in Yeshivishe minyonim, seemingly to "prevent" the Ovel from being Shatz for Hallel. (Also not recorded, AFAIK, except during Shiva.) So, my guess is, that since the Ovel wants to say as many Kadieshim as possible he "gets back the Omud" after Hallel - giving him one more Kaddish. This has no bearing on our discussion, it's a question (and answer) on a recent "Minhag/Hanhogo". Kol Tuv - Danny From emteitz at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 14:06:35 2020 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 17:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: Henry Topas wrote: However one looks at the office of shat"z, there is a difference between chazaras hashat"z and the rest of davening. For everything else, he is essentially a pacer, keeping everyone at the same point in davening, and the leader, in terms of kaddish and borchu. For the amidah, he is definitely a shaliach, whose role it is to be motzi those who cannot themselves daven. It would be possible theoretically not to have a shat"z, having all daven together, and then having one person who, at the appropriate times, would say kaddish and borchu. Chazaras hashat"z, however, must obviously have a shat"z. On days when Hallel is said, it is not a part of chazaras hashat"z; it is, in essence said *during *the chazara, after which the chazara is completed by saying kaddish shalem, which *is* a part of the chazara. (Hallel is in the same category as slichos on fast days, which was originally said during the shat"z's saying the bracha of Slach lanu. Then, too, I believe that someone other than the shat'"z could have led the slichos while the shat"z remained at the amud.) That the aveil should not lead Hallel, but should return for the kaddish because it is a part of the Amidah, is spelled out in the Mishna Brura (581:7). This leads to questioning the practice, when there is more than one aveil, of switching ba'alei tfila at Ashrei-Uva l'Tzion. There are some who object to the practice for that very reason, but apparently it is in the same category as allowing kaddish to be said by more than one person at a time: a concession to darkei shalom in a highly emotional setting. That the aveil not lead Hallel is the opinion of the overwhelming majority. The Mishna Brura loc.cit. brings the apparent opinion of the GR"A who goes even further, that the aveil not lead the entire Shacharis. The MB also cites, in the Biur Halacha in Siman 132, that there are those who bar the aveil from the amud on any day, other than erev Yom Kippur, that Lamnatzeiach is not said -- and does not limit it just to Shacharis on those days. (This is the minhag in my community.) Incidentally, in parts of Europe and in some shuls in EY, there is no shat"z for psukei d'zimra. The amud is unmanned until Yishtabach. If no one need be there, then certainly where there is one, there is no problem in replacing him for Yishtabach. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolberg at yebo.co.za Wed Aug 5 08:00:26 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 17:00:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Censorship in Aruch HaShulchan Message-ID: <014701d66b39$296ebf40$7c4c3dc0$@yebo.co.za> In 39:3, the AH writes: ger (beyamim kadmonim). This was obviously added for the gov censor, similar to Aruch HaShulchan ChM 388:7. Why do we not find the same in MB? Actually, AH OC was written after the same section in MB. Was the political climate in Novardok and Radin so different? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 10 00:52:25 2020 From: eliturkel at mail.gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:52:25 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potato chips and french fries Message-ID: A nice article on the various opinions of bishul akum for french fries and potato chips https://vosizneias.com/2020/08/10/chareidi-potato-chips-versus-regular-chips/ -- Eli Turkel From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 13:42:35 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:42:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Chaim Brisker on his 102nd Yahrzeit Message-ID: <20200811204234.GA9159@aishdas.org> R Elinatan Kupferburg posted this today on Facebook, lekhavod RCB's 102nd yahrzeit (21 Av). Translitarations mine, "q"s and all. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Today is the yahrzeit of [Maran shel kol Benei Yisrael, Rabbeinu Chaim haLevi,] R. Chaim Soloveitchik. It is far beyond this post, or this site, to capture any of the towering significance of Rabbeinu. For that, there's only one thing to do. You have to learn R. Chaim. You sit for hours poring over a sugya without R. Chaim, only to open the sefer and have R. Chaim, with his penetrating, elegant brilliance guide you through the depths of the sea of Talmud. It's as if you were overhearing snippets of a conversation without knowing the topic and then someone revealed it to you and now everything you heard suddenly falls into place. But I do want to make a couple of points about R. Chaim's legacy. Perhaps the most common metonym used to describe or exemplify what is referred to as "the Brisker method," is the cheftza/gavra distinction, often compared to the in rem/in personam legal distinction, though the two are not entirely analogous. It's part of a broader tendency to describe or teach "the Brisker method" by means of a few templatic distinctions: internal/external, intrinsic/accidental, action/result and so on, and has recently been reinforced by books or pamphlets which attempt to do the same. Unfortunately, not only are these gross simplifications and reductions, they entirely obscure what R. Chaim was actually doing, replace it with a different method of study (albeit one that is more prominent in some of his students, notably R. Elchonon Wasserman) and thereby miss his genius. The halakhic discourse, the lomdus, that pervades the Brisk Yeshiva that grew out of the study group around his son R. Velvel (the Brisker Rav) or the other yeshivas it birthed (including BMG), is dissimilar to this perception. 1. The words [cheftza] and [gavra] do not ever appear anywhere in the same piece in [Chiddushei Rabbeinu Chaim haLevi]!! Yes, really. (Except once in [Mekhilah 22:17,] when [gavra] is a quote from the Gemara, i.e. [hahu gavra]). There's a very good reason for that. Because making templatic distinctions is entirely different than what R. Chaim was doing. R. Chaim was elucidating the concepts that underlie and inform halakhic discourse. What is nature of a legal document? What type of obligation is the command is rid chametz? How does a blemish render an animal unfit for sacrifice? Under which mitzva is this prohibition included? R. Chaim's success is defined by precision of conceptual description, which is opposed to templatic rigidity. The only time that [gavra / cheftza] is actually widely used is in Nedarim 2b, in the distinction between vows and oaths, since there the distinction literally is the locus of the prohibition (vows designate an object as forbidden, oaths compel a person to act in a certain way). Often his discussion is not remotely similar to any of the popular "chakiras." For example, the section of the MT that gets the most attention in R. Chaim is the recondite [Hilkhos Tum'as Meis,] in which the pedestrian templates fail. Distinction is a helpful tool in the art of clarity and the halakhic world is composed of human agents and non-human objects, so parts of his discourse may approximate the infamous [gavra / cheftza] but it is by no means central or representative. To be fair, the templatic perception captures certain aspects of some of his chiddushim, and it does communicate the notion of underlying dyadic conceptual distinctions, but I wonder about its ultimate efficacy. 2. The distinctions that approximate [gavra / cheftza] are much older than R. Chaim. Just to give a few examples: - Rivash (Shut 98) extends the gemara's analysis in Nedarim to all prohibitions. - Rid (Eiruvin 48a) uses it describe the prohibition of transporting an object 4 amos in the public domain on Shabbos. - Chasam Sofer (Chullin 115b) uses it to distinguish different types of prohibitions. - Beis Halevi (Shut 3:51 - R. Chaim's father) uses it to explain the nature of the mitzva to eat korbanos. In a broader sense, this type of analysis can be found most acutely in (to give a few examples, moving backwords) Minchas Chinuch, R. Akiva Eiger, the works of R. Aryeh Leib Heller and R. Yaakov Lorberbaum, Peri Megadim, and, most strikingly, by R. Judah Rosanes, whose [Mishneh laMelekh] and [Parashas Derakhim,] two centuries ahead of their time, prefigured much of the Brisker Torah. Of course, the Gemara and Rishonim (Rashi and Meiri come to mind) are not absent of this lomdus either. A recent terminological case from Daf Yomi: take the discussion about perforating an old hole in a wine barrel on Shabbos 146b, where Rashi describes the halakhic crux as whether or not [paqa sheim 'pesach' mineih.] 3. R. Chaim did a lot of things. - He tightened a terminology. - He sharpened the analysis of halakhic concepts. - He displayed a new way of visualizing a sugya and working through it. - He identified the conceptual systematization that forms the substructure of the Mishneh Torah. - He developed a proto-philosophy of halakhic hermeneutics. - He opened the door for gaonim like R. Shimon Shkop to take analysis in a different direction. - By shifting the backdrop from practical halakha to halakha itself, he enabled us to see halakhic concepts not only as useful for determining practice, but as a way through which to view and interact with the world. Each of these deserves a sustained, independent analysis to identify the existing terminologies and approaches that R. Chaim drew on, and the extent of his own innovative prowess. Most powerfully though, he forever changed the halakhic consciousness. Conceptual analysis is now an inexorable part of the talmudic arsenal. Any advanced student of traditional Gemara who sits down to learn has been sensitized to the possibility of a conceptual distinction at play, even if they have no intention of using what they consider "the Brisker method." For some, R. Chaim's thought is so overwhelming that one can never look at Gemara differently again. But I might venture to say that its power lies in the recognition that even if someone does not walk down the path R. Chaim cleared, then that is precisely what they are doing: not learning like R. Chaim. R. Chaim fundamentally defined the contours of halakhic thought, and we are all in his debt. [Ki gadol sheim avinu beYisrael, ve'or Toraso male'ah teiveil -- misof ha'olam ad sofo mamash, umi zeh milomedei Sorah bedoreinu asher lo zarach alav or shimsho venogah Soraso.] From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Aug 11 14:37:14 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:37:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin Message-ID: If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? 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 zev at sero.name Wed Aug 12 08:07:36 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:07:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/8/20 5:37 pm, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another?s birchat hanehenin > and then did not eat, is it a bracha l?vatala for him? I don't see how it can be. The bracha had effect for the person who said it, so it was not wasted. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:23:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:23:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200812202354.GA10738@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 09:37:14PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin > and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? Berakhah levatalah sounds like a description of the "cheftza" of the berakhah. Not gavra-specific. And what would be levatalah, the mevoreikh's kavvanah to be motzi him? Safeiq berakhos lehaqeil is sometimes explained as safeiq deOraisa lechumerah where the deOraisa is sheim Hashem lashav. Along those lines, one could theorize that as long as the sheim wasn't said lashav, it's not a berakhah levatalah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals http://www.aishdas.org/asp is not as important as Author: Widen Your Tent what you become by achieving your goals. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Henry David Thoreau From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Sun Aug 16 08:51:59 2020 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 11:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Business with an Akum Message-ID: One is not permitted to do any kind of business with an Akum (idol-worshipper) on the day of their festival (nor 3 days prior in the Land of Israel) - Rambam Hil. Avodah Zara Ch. 9, Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 148.1. Question - Today, if I know a shop owner is a religious Xian, am I allowed to shop there on Sunday? Or if I know he is a religious Hindu, do I need to mark my calendar with all of the Hindu festivals and avoid his shop on those days? What about a traditional Chinese person on Chinese New Year? Or a Catholic on All Souls Day? If so, is there any halachic literature that lists all of the dates currently forbidden? (I?m also not allowed to sell to him on his holidays, and if I do (in error), I?m not allowed to enjoy the profits of that sale.) Alexander Seinfeld From joelirarich at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 03:47:26 2020 From: joelirarich at gmail.com (Joel Rich) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 06:47:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat hamazon Message-ID: <8FD081BF-3F42-460C-BE16-588F69071B09@gmail.com> A group of people are having Shabbos meal together in the dining room. They all get up to clear the main course dishes and bring them into the kitchen. The dessert flatware and glasses remain on the table Must they say birchat hamazon immediately upon return to the table? Kt Joel rich From micha at aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 09:00:38 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 12:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re'eih vs Shema Message-ID: <20200816160038.GA25978@aishdas.org> Because we say the words from Va'eschanan multiple times a day, I have heard (pun intended, sadly) a lot about shema when it means something more than the stimulation of neurons in my inner ear. Like the English word "listen", "shema" connotes paying attention, obeying ("eiqev asher shamata beQoli"), etc... So, what do we get from the use of "re'eih", as in the title of this week's parashah? In the past couple of days, I cam up with a theory about the difference between shemi'ah and re'iyah, but want to vet it with the chevrah. Shema introduces a theological fact we can only accept in the abstract. We don't even fully understand how One, Indivisible and Unique Hashem is. We are told to accept ol malkhus Shamayim on this basis, but the fact itself is one we can apprehend, not experience. Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite different than an abstract truth. (This seems to be consistent with "ein domeh shemi'ah lere'iyah". "Re'iyah" is something I can know first-hand.) Ta chazi in the bavli seems to also fit this pattern: Berakhos 58a: Rav Sheishes says to a min, "ta chazi" that I am brighter than you, proceding to show he figured out when the king would come. But then, the point was made at the beginning ot the story that R Sheishes was blind, so ht emay have been using the phrase pointed. Eiruvin 6b: ta chazi that the gates of Neharda'ah couldn't be locked. (And thus Shemu'el doesn't require they be locked in order to permit carrying.) Etc... All cases of "go and check for yourself". Nothing at all like "ta shema", which introduces learning a teaching. And of course "puq chazi". But in the Yerushalmi and the Zohar, "ta chazi" is used the way "ta shema" is in Bavel. So, maybe I am just reading too much into Bavli idiom. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a http://www.aishdas.org/asp person is to remain asleep and untamed." Author: Widen Your Tent - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From kbloom at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 14:30:40 2020 From: kbloom at gmail.com (Ken Bloom) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:30:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? Message-ID: Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Aug 17 15:37:49 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 22:37:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Dialectics? Message-ID: An important caveat (IMHO) from R' A Lebowitz to a number of shiurim from diverse speakers: Me-....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y, and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y? R' AL-I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just a helpful way to contextualize the issues I'm still thinking there's another paradigm shift coming, interested in hearing from others. 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 doniels at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 04:55:45 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:55:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > From: "Rich, Joel" > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3 (excuse the Hebrew for the ????? crowd) - translation from Sefaria (after removing a Chumra not in the original): ????? ????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ?????????, ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ?????????????, ???? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???????. "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi shebeirach [a blessing for those who fast on these days] and you intended to fast, this is sufficient, and no other form of acceptance is needed. " ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query. Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of getting the best of both worlds. Kol Tuv - Danny From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Aug 18 05:43:47 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:43:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query. Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of getting the best of both worlds. ============================================== When I learned this with my chavruta a few months back my comment was - I'd love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - machshava balma (random thought?) which has no halachic significance, amira (specific oral articulation) which is completely binding and amen/specific machshava(really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat indeterminate (not welcome in a brisker world?) 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 doniels at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 05:03:54 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:03:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Re'eih vs Shema In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMB reminded me of a vort I heard and said over at this week's Shabbos table. The opening word of the Sedra - Re'eih - is seemingly superfluous. "I present you today with [the ability to choose between] blessing or curse". What does "Look! I present you...." add? The answer was exactly as RMB proposed: > Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the > world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite > different than an abstract truth. We need to look around and see how choice and its consequences are built into the creation. Kol Tuv - Danny From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Aug 18 05:54:11 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 08:54:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. looking for sources and current custom Message-ID: <015401d6755e$aba2ff10$02e8fd30$@touchlogic.com> #! ... May a women uncover her hair in private? Halachah addresses public, semipublic, and private settings: Public: The Torah states that a woman must completely cover her hair in a public place. Some opinions state that under a tefach (a handbreadth, about three inches total) of hair may show. Semipublic: In a semipublic place, one opinion states that even if men are not usually found there, a married woman must cover her hair. When a woman covers her hair, this brings much blessing into the home Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory...." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required." Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? #2 https://www.yoatzot.org/questions-and-answers/1910/ Question: Does a woman have to cover her hair in front of her brothers? Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the presence of your father, husband and son. Where it is customary and not considered offensive, a woman may uncover her hair in front of her brother in the privacy of her own home. Is this leniency known/relied upon? Is this what people are doing out there today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 17:51:37 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:51:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200819005137.GB6547@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 02:55:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote: > I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3... > "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday > following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi > shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient... > "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you > may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." > This last line is -- in my mind -- parallel to your query. > Seems that answering Amen -- even with intention -- is one way of > getting the best of both worlds. I think the best of both worlds may only because you said amein to blessing the fasters, and not "me too" to someone's pledge to fast. There is mental acceptance during a related verbal act. Not a verbal acceptance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but the lighting of a fire. Author: Widen Your Tent - W.B. Yeats - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 17:48:02 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:48:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Dialectics? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200819004802.GA6547@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:37:49PM +0000, Joel Rich wrote: > Me- >> ....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I >> just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y, >> and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean >> choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y? > R' AL[ebowitz]- >> I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just >> a helpful way to contextualize the issues When discussing Brisker vs Telzher derakhim, everyone focuses on "Vus?" vs "Fahr vus?" (What? vs Why?) But another major different is R' Shimon's heavy use of the concept of hitztarfus -- the idea that a halakhah can be caused by the convergence of multiple factors. >From Widen Your Tent (by me), sec. 6.3: But there is a second distinction: Rav Chaim would explain an apparent contradiction by finding "the chiluk," the distinction between two cases that we initially thought ought to be the same, or the distinction between the viewpoints in two sides of a dispute. Rav Chaim's is a reductionist approach to analyzing a topic; it teaches how to understand something by identifying and understanding each of its parts. This methodology is suited for identifying "the cause" of a law. Rav Shimon also invokes hitztarfus, fusion or connectedness. It allows us to better ask, once we know the parts, how do they combine and interact to produce the given result? From this vantage point, rather than looking for a single cause, we can see that a given ruling can come from the way in which many halachic causes combine. Suppose we were tasked to do analysis to find out why some accident happened. For example: Why did David hurt his foot? Because a paint can fell on it. Why did the can fall? Because someone else accidentally knocked it off its shelf. Why did he knock it off the shelf? Because his nose itched, and he lifted his hand to scratch it, and also because the shelf wasn't on its brackets correctly and wobbled a bit. However, it's equally true that he hurt his foot because even though he usually wears iron-toed hiking boots, he chose not to wear them that that day. And why did he not wear his boots? Because when he was looking for something to put on his feet, someone else had turned on the light in another room, which changed his train of thought. And so on. Every event has many causes, each of which in turn has its own many causes. Rarely does an event only have one cause. We get used to identifying "the cause" of something. I would instead suggest that every event is like "the perfect storm"; each one has combinations of factors that come to a head at the same point. Similarly, Rav Shimon saw no reason to assume that it takes one cause to create an obligation or prohibition, rather than a combination of them. Which I then relate to R Shimon's approach to chessed as a widening of one's "ani" to include others. (The way we naturally have little problem giving to our children, because in a sense, they're "us".) I also use the difference between the focus on reductionism vs interconnectedness to explain a structural difference between Aristo's books and the Mishnah. WHich may be more relevant to the point: This difference between Semitic and Yefetic perspectives can be seen by contrasting the style of Aristotle with that of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Aristotle catalogues. He divides a subject into subtopics, and those subtopics even further, until one is down to the individual fact. Greek thought was focused on reductionism. To understand a phenomenon, break it down into smaller pieces and try to understand each piece. This is typical of the Yefetic perspective. That reductionism stands in contrast to the way Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi redacted the first Mishnah. The beginning of all of Mishnah could have said outright that Rabbi Eliezer ruled that the time for saying the evening Shema is from sunset and for the first third of the night. This is the way United States legal codes are arranged divided and subdivided into law, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, clauses, and items, with an effort to minimize cross-references. Instead the first Mishnah makes its point by invoking the priesthood, purity, and the night shifts in the Temple, "from the time Kohanim [who went to the mikvah to be purified during the prior day] may enter to eat their terumah until the end of the first shift." It describes the start and end times for the mitzvah using referents that one wouldn't normally assume when starting study. This is not to confuse the issue or needlessly close study from non-initiates, but because the key to understanding one mitzvah necessarily includes its connections to everything else. The proper time to say Shema cannot be understood without that context. The task Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi set out to accomplish with the Mishnah was not to explain the rationales of the halachah, and therefore the Mishnah spells out this holistic understanding. We are left not knowing why the rules of when Kohanim who needed the mikvah may eat terumah or the time the first shift in the Beis Hamikdash ended add meaning to the time span in which the nighttime Shema may be said. But the Mishnah does record the law in memorizable form, and apparently that includes helping us remember the halachah by association to the other halachos it relates to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur http://www.aishdas.org/asp with the proper intent than to fast on Yom Author: Widen Your Tent Kippur with that intent. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 12:42:04 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Limits of Parshanut Message-ID: <20200820194204.GA9194@aishdas.org> Parshanut doesn't have rules of pesaq. Nothing ever ends an opinion (lifsoq) once it is derived. So, those 98 ways become 9,604 ways, and then 941,192 ways as each interpretation gets its 98 interpretations. And then we have cases where those who pursue peshat -- Rashbam, IE, most famously -- give a peshat in the pasuq which they acknowledge runs against Chazal. But they feel Chazal weren't working bederekh peshat. (And the Rashbam is clear that he doesn't believe Chazal were wrong, or that anything he says about the pasuq has halachic signicance. E.g. see his comments on "vayhi erev, vayhi boqer".) But, procedurally, there still has to be rules for what kind of interpretation is valid and what aren't. I cannot believe that people can just make stuff up, and if fits a linguistic oddity of the text or a wording in some source of Chazal it's necessarily Torah. I don't know what the limits are. All I know is the limits of my own comfort zone. *To me*, "toras Hashem temimah" means that if I have a theory of how to understand something aggadic -- theology, mussar or parshanut -- it must be driven by material internal to the existing body Torah. If I am forced to an an entirely new understanding that no one proposed before to answer a scientific question, I would prefer leaving the question tabled, teiqu, than to run with this kind of innovation. To me, following a tendency I heard around YU from R YB Soloveitchik's students (my own rebbe, R Dovid, was yet more conservative), this is related to the difference between chiddush and shinui. "There is no beis medrash without chiddush" because learning Torah means extrapolating new points from the existing data. Extrapolation from and interpolation between existing Torah "data points" is chiddush. Shinui is innovation driven by something other than Torah. I am not sure if RYBS would say that in the context of parshanut in particular or not. As I said, as this point we're only discussing the not-that-relevant topic of "Micha's comfort zone". Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... http://www.aishdas.org/asp ... but you're the pilot. Author: Widen Your Tent - R' Zelig Pliskin - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 13:27:15 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:27:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vaccine Trials in Halakhah Message-ID: <20200820202715.GA32236@aishdas.org> Given the need for CoVID-19 vaccine challenge trials, I heard a number of podcasts on the topics of testing or volunteering to be a test subject for an experimental cure. But, it's hard to get people who are reading an email digest to take time for an audio. So, here's a link to something in text. https://thelehrhaus.com/timely-thoughts/signing-up-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-trial Here's the halachic section of the paper, minus all set-up and general ethics discussion. Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; http://www.aishdas.org/asp Experience comes from bad decisions. Author: Widen Your Tent - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF The Lehrhaus Signing Up for a COVID-19 Vaccine Trial By Sharon Galper Grossman and Shamai Grossman August 18, 2020 ... Undergoing Dangerous Medical Procedures in Halakhah Halakhah's approach to dangerous medical procedures begins with Avodah Zara 27b, which permits a hayei sha'ah - a sick individual with a limited time to live - to seek the care of a pagan doctor, because while we worry that a Jew-hating doctor might kill the Jewish patient, he might also effect a long-term cure. However, if the sick individual is unlikely to die, he may not turn to the pagan. The Gemara's explanation as to why we permit the hayei sha'ah to risk his brief remaining time alive is, "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" - we are not concerned about a risk to a short life because the pagan doctor might cure him. The Gemara derives this principle from the dilemma of the four lepers in II Kings 7:3-8. Banished from their city, which was struck by famine, they faced starvation. They saw a camp of Arameans possessing food, and were confronted by the following dilemma. If they were to enter the camp, the Arameans might kill them, yet they might feed them. Preferring possible immediate death from capture to certain subsequent death from starvation, the lepers entered the camp. There they discovered an abundance of food and survived. Tosafot (s.v. le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan) questions the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan." Doesn't Yoma 65a's permission to move stones on Shabbat to search for a hayei sha'ah buried underneath the rubble imply that we value even the briefest survival? Tosafot answers that in both cases we act in the best interest of the patient, rejecting certain death for an uncertainty that might prolong life. Thus, in Avodah Zarah, we disregard hayei sha'ah because otherwise the patient will surely die. In Yoma, we desecrate Shabbat for the hayei sha'ah because if we do not remove the stones, he will also certainly die. Based on Avodah Zara 27b and the story of the lepers, Shulhan Arukh Yoreh De'ah 155:1 codifies the principal "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan," permitting a hayei sha'ah to incur the risk of death at the hands of a pagan doctor in the hope of a long-term cure. Numerous modern poskim[7] rule that a hayei sha'ah may undergo a risky medical procedure if it offers the chance of a long-term cure. Shevut Ya'akov 3:75 explains, "Since the patient will certainly die, we push off the certainty of death and opt for the possibility of cure." One source, however, seems to prohibit the hayei sha'ah from undergoing dangerous medical treatment. Sefer Hasidim 467 describes a special herb remedy with the potential to kill or cure within days of use, accusing the women who prepared it of shortening the lives of their patients. One might interpret his denunciation as a rejection of the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan." Orhot Hayyim, Orah Hayyim 328:10 dismisses this interpretation, explaining that Sefer Hasidim only prohibits the risky remedy because there is an alternative safe treatment. He argues that in the absence of an effective alternative even Sefer Hasidim would accept the risk. Applied to our case ,the absence of an effective cure for COVID-19 might justify engaging in a risky process to find a cure. Does the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" permit healthy volunteers like Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial that injects half of the participants with a vaccine of uncertain benefit, exposing them to a lethal virus? To answer this question, we must determine if hayei sha'ah applies to healthy volunteers who do not face the risk of immediate death, the level of medical risk one may incur to achieve hayei olam (long-term cure), and the level of benefit required to justify the assumption of such risk. In addition, we must establish whether the volunteers may endanger themselves, in the absence of any personal gain, purely for the benefit of others, and whether this principle applies to experimental therapies where the benefit of treatment is unclear. Finally, if Halakhah permits participation, is one obligated to volunteer? Defining Hayei Sha'ah The discussion permitting dangerous medical treatment assumed that the individual had the status of hayei sha'ah - a terminal illness with a limited time to live. Can we interpret hayei sha'ah more broadly, and can we apply this understanding to human vaccine challenge trials involving healthy volunteers? Rishonim and early Aharonim do not define hayei sha'ah precisely. Their interpretation of the term ranges from a life expectancy as short as one to two days to longer than a year (see Table 1). Though these poskim debate the exact duration of life required to satisfy the halakhic definition of hayei sha'ah, they view a hayei sha'ah as an individual with an illness that compromises his life expectancy. At first glance, these poskim would not classify Sam, a healthy young volunteer, as a hayei sha'ah. However, Tiferet Yisrael Yoma, Yakhin 8:3, expands the definition, permitting a healthy individual to undergo smallpox vaccination, which causes death in one in 1,000 individuals, to attain long-term immunity. He dismisses the small risk of immediate death from vaccination so as to prevent future lethal infections and broadens the definition of hayei sha'ah to include situations where the cause of death is not present, but is only a statistical possibility. He bases this ruling on Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which, citing the Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, obligates a person to place himself in a possible danger to save his friend from a certain danger. So for example, if someone sees his friend drowning in the sea, he must jump in to save him though he risks drowning during his attempted rescue. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if a bystander is obligated to incur possible risk to rescue his drowning friend from a possible danger, a healthy individual may accept possible immediate peril to save himself from a possible future danger. Rabbi J.D. Bleich applies Tiferet Yisrael's definition of hayei sha'ah to healthy carriers of the BRCA mutation who act to reduce their high risk of cancer by opting for prophylactic surgery.[8] Though the cancer has not yet developed, they may incur the immediate risk of surgery to increase their life expectancy.[9] Even if we consider a genetic predisposition or a statistical probability a present danger, it is unlikely that unafflicted carriers of such a mutation will die within twelve months. By permitting a healthy individual to assume a one in 1,000 risk of immediate death to prevent a future lethal smallpox infection, Tiferet Yisrael suggests that Halakhah recognizes the importance of disease prevention, equating it with treatments for active life-threatening disease. His halakhic analysis and assessment might permit a healthy volunteer such as Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial to achieve immunity from COVID-19. However, such a trial involves substantial risk without proven benefits. In addition, because Tiferet Yisrael bases his position on the Yerushalmi which obligates an individual to endanger himself to save someone who faces certain danger, Tiferet Yisrael might even allow Sam to participate in the absence of any personal benefit, for pure altruism to save humanity. Defining a Permissible Level of Risk Aharonim debate the exact level of risk the hayei sha'ah may incur. Ahiezer 2:16:6 cites Mishnat Hakhamim to permit a dangerous treatment for a safek shakul - a risk of death less than or equal to 50%. If the risk of death exceeds 50%, the hayei sha'ah may not receive the treatment. This is also the opinion of Tzitz Elieze r 10:25:5:5. If the majority of physicians endorse treatment, Ahiezer permits a risk greater than 50% and does not define the upper limit of permitted risk. Because any COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial would receive the prior approval of an overseeing body of physicians, Ahiezer might permit participation for a risk higher than 50%. Beit David Yoreh De'ah II:340 permits a hayei sha'ah to receive a treatment that causes death in 999 out of 1,000 patients. In 1961, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58, permitted a treatment in which the odds were more than 50% that it would cause death. However, in 1972 (Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 3:36), he modified his position, permitting only a safek shakul. He concludes that a hayei sha'ah who seeks medical treatment with a greater than 50% risk of death may rely on the more lenient position of Ahiezer and receive the dangerous therapy. How does Sam's participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial compare to the risks that these poskim cite? They address situations where the person is terminally ill and faces imminent death, but do not define the level of risk a healthy individual may incur. However, Tiferet Yisrael permits a healthy individual to undergo vaccination against smallpox with a risk of death of one in 1,000. For all adults age 20-29 infected with COVID-19, including those with comorbidities, virologists estimate a 1.1% risk of complications requiring hospitalization and 0.03% risk of death,[10] an approximation that might either overestimate or underestimate Sam's true risk. Sam, who suffers no comorbidities, might be at the low end of the participation risk. Furthermore, because Sam lives in an area with a large number of COVID-19 cases, he is already at high risk of infection; participation only minimally increases this. Should he become infected, he will receive state-of-the-art care, which might reduce his complications. In addition, if researchers identify an effective treatment, that treatment would further diminish his participation risk. With appropriate risk minimization (e.g., careful titration of viral dose, early diagnosis, and optimal medical care), Sam might face little, if any, additional risk related to experimental infection. Alternatively, Sam's risk of death might be higher than estimated because the vaccine or the strain of virus injected might increase the severity of infection or the incidence of lasting harm. In addition, because the virus is so new and follow-up of those infected limited, the long-term risks of COVID-19 infection are unknown and might be greater than anticipated. Even if Sam's risk from participating is higher than estimated, his danger of death is still well below the 50% threshold that the above poskim use and the 0.1% risk that Tifferet Yisrael permits for healthy individuals undergoing smallpox vaccination. Definition of Hayei Olam - What Benefits Justify Risk? The above discussion, which explored a hayei sha'ah's acceptable level of risk with regard to medical treatments, assumed that the goal of treatment is to achieve hayei olam, a long-term cure. Poskim disagree about whether one may undergo a dangerous therapy for any other purpose, such as prolonging life in the absence of a complete recovery or the relief of pain and symptoms. Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58 and 3:36 prohibits risky treatment that merely prolongs life in the absence of complete recovery. Rav Bleich offers a different perspective.[11] Quoting Ramban's Torat ha-Adam,[12] which derives from the phrase, "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" the principle that "we are not concerned with possible [loss of] hayei sha'ah in the face of more life (hayei tuva)," Rav Bleich interprets "hayei tuva" to mean more life, and concludes that Ramban would permit dangerous medical treatment to achieve a longer period of hayei sha'ah, even in the absence of a cure. Iggerot Moshe Yore De'ah II:36 prohibits dangerous treatment for pain relief alone. Rav Yaakov Emden, Mor u-Kezi'ah 328, writes that surgery for pain relief is not "hutar le-gamrei," categorically permitted, suggesting that under specific circumstances it might be allowed. Tzitz Eliezer 13:87 permits morphine for a dying patient, although morphine might hasten his death, because nothing torments man more than intractable pain. Thus, Tzitz Eliezer would argue, a hayei sha'ah may undergo dangerous treatment not just to achieve hayei olam but also to achieve hayei tuva, longer life or pain relief. What is the benefit to Sam of participating in the human vaccine challenge trial? Will participation give him hayei olam, hayei tuva, or some other non-life prolonging benefit? First, vaccination itself or infection with or without vaccination might yield hayei olam -- a long-term cure and permanent immunity to COVID-19, akin to Tiferet Yisrael's smallpox vaccine. However, it is possible that the vaccine or infection will only provide temporary immunity. Here, participation will not achieve hayei olam, but only hayei tuva, but revaccination to boost his immunity could yield hayei olam. Second, because Sam lives in a high-infection zone, he faces a real risk of becoming infected even if he does not participate. Participation guarantees Sam priority in the allocation of medical resources and the best medical care should he become infected. By participating, Sam decreases his risk of complications and death from infection. Better care could improve his medical outcome and increase his chances of surviving COVID-19, thus facilitating hayei olam. Furthermore, if he develops immunity, he can no longer infect his family. The possibility of achieving long-term or short-term immunity to COVID-19, better treatment if infected, and relieving anxiety over infecting others are direct benefits to Sam for participating in the trial. However, it is possible that participation will provide no benefit, direct or indirect, to Sam. Sam's ultimate motivation for participation, like that of the thousands of volunteers who have come forward to participate in these trials, is altruism, helping to discover an effective vaccine that will save millions of lives. May one undergo a dangerous treatment in order to save others? Incurring Risk to Save Others Citing Talmud Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426 obligates one to place himself in a possible danger to save the life of someone facing certain danger. In Shulhan Arukh, Rav Yosef Karo and Rama omit this requirement. Sema Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 explains that Shulhan Arukh and Rama follow Rambam, Rif, Rosh, and Tur, who also omit this obligation. Pithei Teshuvah Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 suggests that they omitted this obligation because it contradicts Talmud Bavli (Niddah 61a and Sanhedrin 73a) and Jewish law typically follows Talmud Bavli. Radbaz 3:627 (53) was asked if a foreign government demands that a Jew undergo removal of a limb, a procedure presumed not to endanger his life, to save the life of another Jew, may one do so. He answers that one who consents acts with midat hasidut, a degree of piety, but if amputation will endanger his life, he is a hasid shoteh, acting illogically by violating the commandment va-hai bahem (which Sanhedrin 74a understands to mean that mitzvot are to live by and not die by). Similarly, in in Radbaz 5 Lilshonot ha-Rambam 1:582 (218), he addresses whether one is obligated to save the life of a fellow Jew, he explains that if the rescuer faces a safek mukhra - a certain danger - he has no obligation to act. But if the odds are greater that he will save his friend without endangering himself, failure to rescue transgresses lo ta'amod al dam rei'ekha. Tiferet Yisrael bases his teshuvah permitting a healthy volunteer to undergo smallpox vaccination on Talmud Yerushalmi and Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which obligate a person to place himself in danger to save a drowning friend. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if one may endanger himself to rescue his friend from danger, he may certainly assume risk of vaccination to save himself and achieve long-term immunity. In fact, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:174:4 permits one to accept a possible danger if it will save someone else from a definite danger. Tzitz Eliezer 13:101 rules that one may participate in experimental therapy and donate blood to benefit others if physicians determine that participation is risk-free. We consider such participation a mitzvah. In this situation, however, physicians cannot determine the risk of Sam's participating in the human vaccine trial and cannot claim that the trial is without risk. In Yehaveh Da'at 3:84, Rav Ovadia Yosef prohibits treatment with a risk greater than 50% based on Radbaz's classification of a rescuer who endangers himself for a safek shakul as a hasid shoteh. Rav Ovadia Yosef states that the majority of Aharonim, including Eliyah Rabba 328:8, Netziv ha-Emek She'eilah Re'eh 147:4, Aruh Ha-shulkhan 426, Mishpat Kohen 143-2, Heikhal Yitzhak Orah Hayyim 3, and Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 1:145, support this position. However, he permits kidney donation and even considers it a mitzvah, because the risk to the donor is low; according to the physicians with whom he consulted, 99% of donors recover fully from the operation. Interestingly, like Rav Ovadia Yosef, ethicists point to kidney donation as a model for determining the level of risk one may accept to benefit others[13,14] and consider the risk of death from participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial equivalent to the risk of death from kidney donation.[15] Because the risk of death from participating in this trial is significantly less than 50% and is comparable to the risk of kidney donation, Halakhah would seem to permit Sam's altruistic enrollment to save others from certain death from the virus. In fact, Sam's participation, which has the potential to save not just one life, like a kidney donor, but millions, is not only permitted but meritorious. One might even argue that Sam is obligated to participate based on lo ta'amod al dam rei'ekha. Rav Asher Weiss in Minhat Asher 3:122 cites Ta'anit 18b as proof that an individual may endanger himself to save the community, and in doing so performs a great mitzvah. According to Rashi, Turyanus, a Roman official, accused the Jews of murdering the emperor's daughter. He threatened mass execution unless the guilty party confessed. To save the community, Lilianus and Pappus, falsely do so. Turyanos executes them and spares the community. Rav Weiss concludes that an individual who gives his life to save the community has a direct path to the Garden of Eden. He states that when a nation is at war, there are unique rules of pikuah nefesh, the obligation to save a life. To win, the nation requires the self-sacrifice of not only its soldiers, but all those who fill essential, life-saving roles, such as police officers, fire fighters, security guards, and physicians. In the midst of a pandemic that has infected 13,000,000 and led to the death of 500,000 worldwide, one may reasonably conclude that we are at war with COVID-19, and that Sam and the other volunteers for a human vaccine challenge trial are voluntary conscripts. Though Halakhah permits one to undergo risky treatment to achieve a long-term cure, poskim, including Tiferet Yisrael Yoma 8:3, do not obligate participation. If the chance that the treatment will succeed is greater than 50%, Iggerot Moshe in Yore De'ah 3:36 and Choshen Mishpat 2:74:5 Rav Bleich explains that assuming risk for a long-term cure is permitted but not obligatory, because we trust a person to do what is reasonable to safeguard his body from danger. For those who are risk averse, undertaking a dangerous treatment or participating in a human vaccine trial would be unreasonable, while for the less conservative, such as Sam, the risk is acceptable. Experimental Therapy in Halakhah The discussion about dangerous medical treatment applies to therapies with known medical benefits. How does Halakhah approach risks incurred for experimental therapy with no proven benefit? Ttitz Eliezer 13:101 limits participation in experimental treatment to trials that are risk-free. Rav Moshe Dov Welner in ha-Torah ve-haMedinah, VII-VIII (5716-5717), 314, prohibits participation in clinical trials that lack scientific basis. He addresses a situation where the physician has no idea how to treat a disease and decides to experiment on a dying patient because the patient will die anyway. He calls such a physician a terrorist. The scientific reality surrounding human vaccine trials is vastly different than this extreme example. While the exact benefits of participation - such as whether the vaccine confers immunity and whether it will eradicate COVID-19 - are unknown, these trials employ vaccines that have already shown promise in preliminary trials and undergone extensive review by governmental and international agencies that have approved their scientific merit as potential vaccines. Such trials would not qualify as acts of desperation, implemented because the patient is dying anyway. Minhat Shlomo 2:82:12 permits participation in medical research, classifying the battle against disease as a milhemet mitzvah, a necessary war. Today we do not have a king or beit din to declare a milhemet mitzvah against disease and obligate the healthy to take dangerous medicines to help find a cure. He writes that because recognized experts, our contemporary equivalent of a beit din or king, take great care to execute these studies, one may participate. He explains that participation qualifies as holeh lefanenu, the presence of an actual sick person before us, which is considered a fundamental halakhic requirement for defining a situation as pikuah nefesh. In Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De'ah 280, Rav Yehezkel Landau prohibited autopsies because they are for the benefit of future patients, not those who appear before us now, and thus fail to meet a strict definition of holeh lefanenu.[16] Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explains that those autopsies were performed exclusively to increase the physician's knowledge, so are not comparable to experimental therapy. Rav Auerbach believes that contemporary medical research qualifies as holeh lefanenu because those sick with these diseases are before us, and the treatments to be tested are before us. He considers participation in clinical trials safek hatzalat nefashot - possibly life-saving - and not merely an academic exercise to increase scientific knowledge. Human Vaccine Challenge Trials Recently, Rav Asher Weiss[17] directly addressed the permissibility of participating in such trials. Reiterating his position in Minhat Asher 3:101 that one may endanger oneself to perform an essential communal role such as serving as a police officer, rescue worker, or even judge who risks death threats, he permits young, healthy individuals to participate in COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trials in controlled environments because the risk of complications or death is low, especially for those who are young and lack comorbidities, and the trial can potentially save thousands of lives. He notes the concerns of Noda be-Yehuda[18] and Hatam Sofer,[19] who prohibited autopsies because such procedures failed to satisfy their halakhic definition of holeh lefanenu. Rav Weiss explains that even if we do not define participation as pikuah nefesh, overriding biblical and rabbinic prohibitions, it is a mitzvah since it will save millions of lives. This social good permits Sam to assume the small risk of participation. Furthermore, one cannot extrapolate from the autopsies of the Noda be-Yehuda to contemporary scientific reality. It is highly unlikely that autopsies performed two hundred years ago affected medical care. He writes, "verifying the efficacy of a vaccine would not be categorized as a benefit in the distant future, but rather as a great mitzvah that is, in fact, halakhically considered to be possibly life-saving." He rejects Rav Auerbach's classification of medical research as milhemet mitzvah because this designation obligates participation in medical research, and Rav Weiss believes that participation is not obligatory. Only wars fought against enemy armies qualify as milhamot mitzvah, not public dangers such as wild animals and diseases, to which only the laws of pikuach nefesh apply. Conclusion The halakhic decisions cited above, including perhaps even Radbaz, would seem to permit Sam's participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial, because a healthy individual may incur a small risk of death, comparable to the risk permitted for other acts of altruism such as kidney donation to achieve long-term immunity. In addition, the potential benefit to society is immeasurable, preventing the death and suffering of millions by halting the spread of this pandemic and ending the physical, psychological, and economic devastation of prolonged social distancing. Table 1 ... [Okay, I couldn't pass the summary table of who defines chayei sha'ah as how long to the digest. So, go check the URL for yourself! Skipping to the foonotes. -micha] ... [7] Shvut Yaakov 3:75, Pithei Teshuvah Yoreh De'ah 339:1, Gilyon Maharsha Yoreh De'ah 155:1, Binat Adam 73, 93, Binyan Tziyyon 111, Tiferet Yisrael Boaz, Yoma 8:3, Ahiezer 2:16:6, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58 and 3:36, and Tzitz Eliezer 4:13, all permit a hayei sha'ah to undergo risky medical treatment for cure. [8] Bleich, J.D., "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures," Tradition, 37, no.3 (2003): 76-100, [241]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23262430 . [9] Bleich, J.D. "Genetic Screening: Survey of Recent Halachic Periodical Literature," Tradition, 34, no.1 (2000): 63-87, [243]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23261641?seq=1 . [10] Verity, R. et al, "Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis," Lancet Infect. Dis. March 30, 2020, [245]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20 )30243-7/fulltext . [11] Bleich, J.D., "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures," Tradition, 37, no. 3 (2003): 94. [12] Kol Kitvei ha-Ramban, II, 38. [13] Miller, G., Joffe, S., "Limits to Research Risks," J. Med. Ethics 35, 445 (2009). [14] Resnik, D., "Limits on Risks for Healthy Volunteers in Biomedical Research," Theor. Med. Bioeth. 33, no. 2 (April, 2012): 137. [15] Verity, R. et al, "Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis," Lancet Infect. Dis. March 30, 2020, [251]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20 )30243-7/fulltext. [16] For a more detailed discussion of the definition of holeh lefanenu in Covid-19, see our earlier Lehrhaus essay, [253]https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/sharpening-the-definition-of-h oleh-lefanenu-the-diamond-princess-and-the-limits-of-quarantine/. [17] Rav Asher Weiss, "Experimental Treatments for Coronavirus," Mosaica Press (2020): 5-7. [18] Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De'ah, 210. [19] Hatam Sofer Yoreh De'ah, 336. From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Aug 20 14:43:28 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:43:28 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. Message-ID: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> << Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory...." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required." Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? >> See Igeros Moshe Even HaEzer Chelek 1 siman 48 and also (and particularly) Igeros Moshe Orech Chaim chelek 5 siman 37:12: ????? ???? ???? ????, ???? ?????. ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????. ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????. ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? (???? ?"? ?"?), ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????. ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????. The covering of the head before her husband is not necessary. Since the prohibition of uncovering the head is only in the marketplace. And even at the time of her period, there is no prohibition in her house before her husband and children. And there is a hidur to do like Kimchit (Yoma 47a) but we have not heard that there are any modest like this and even in the earlier generations. And in the time of the Tanaim the married women were not accustomed so except for individuals like Kimchit. Note specifically *but we have not heard that there are any modest like this, and even in the earlier generations*. A reasonably translation of this is surely: neither Rav Moshe's wife, nor his mother did this. <> I think it depends on your community. In a modern orthodox community in which most women are not covering their hair when they go out in a public place either, I suspect many if not most of the few women who do cover their hair when they go out absolutely rely on this position, and sometimes more lenient ones inside their homes (ie only cover their hair when they go out, as per the pshat of the mishna & gemora in Ketubos as referred to by Rav Moshe, and not when in their home regardless of who is there). In the Satmar community where they shave their heads, no, I am pretty sure no women are relying on this leniency. Within the communities on the spectrum between these two poles, I suspect it varies, getting more likely as you move towards the more "modern" end and less likely as you move towards the more charedi and certainly Chassidic end. But Rav Moshe never having heard of it in his and in previous generations is a notable data point. Regards Chana From mcohen at touchlogic.com Thu Aug 20 17:04:40 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:04:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. In-Reply-To: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> Thank you for your comments RCL wrote... Note specifically *but we have not heard that there are any modest like this, and even in the earlier generations*. A reasonably translation of this is surely: neither Rav Moshe's wife, nor his mother did this. True; although I would like to hear what the Feinstein children testify about their mothers hanhaga.. RCL wrote... Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the presence of your father, husband and son. R moshe as quoted only mentions husband/children. Where/how do we expand this to her brother? if it was bc of the simple pshat of the Mishna & gemora in Ketubos, then everyone should be ok inside (not just brother/family) and if the heter is based on inside - is uncovered hair allowed when swimming w husband/children alone (but outside)? (it is illogical to suggest that there is a continual obligation to cover her hair outside, even when a permissible situation such as alone or only with other women) Mc From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Aug 20 17:56:42 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 01:56:42 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. In-Reply-To: <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> References: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <000001d67755$efd44600$cf7cd200$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMC writes: <> Actually, this wasn't me, this was the yoetzet website you quoted. <> I assume that the reasoning behind the website's psak is based on with whom she is allowed to have yichud. Rav Moshe also doesn't specifically mention father, and yet the logic of the website including father as automatically on the same page as husband and children would seem to be driven by the unity of halacha regarding yichud. The yichud status of brothers is a bit more complex, as a certain level of yichud is allowed, but not completely, and hence they would seem the logical extension to question, and one could understand a view that, to the extent yichud is allowed, so should this be. >Mc Regards Chana From akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com Fri Aug 21 03:06:29 2020 From: akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 06:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > I'd love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - > machshava balma (random thought?) which has no halachic significance, > amira (specific oral articulation) which is completely binding and > amen/specific machshava (really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat > indeterminate (not welcome in a brisker world?) It seems to me that what you're really asking is: How/why does "Shomea k'oneh" work? Why is it that if I listen to someone say something, and we both have the correct "specific machshava", it is considered "as if" I had said it myself? And, just as importantly, to what *extent* is it considered as if I said it myself? As an illustration of this principle, R' Danny Schoemann cited the Kitzur in 127:3 > Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday > following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi > shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient... > Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, > you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself. I'd like to offer another illustration: If a person is saying Shemoneh Esreh when the shul is at Kaddish or Kedusha, Mechaber 104:7 writes that "He should be quiet and pay attention to the shatz, and it will be like he is answering." And the Mishne Berura 104:28 explains: "It will be like he is answering for the purpose of being thereby yotzay for Kaddish and Kedusha, but nevertheless it is not considered a hefsek." The halacha of Shomea K'oneh seems to allow us to have it both ways: We have *effectively* said something, yet not *actually* said anything. [Email #2. -micha] Addendum to what I wrote a few minutes ago: I know that Shomea K'Oneh is effective even when one does not actually respond "Amen". After all, a precise translation of the phrase would NOT be "listening is like answering Amen", but is rather "mere listening is like repeating it yourself." And yet, I seem to recall that there are some specific cases where the halacha differs depending on whether the person actually said "Amen" aloud, vs where he merely listened with all the correct intentions. Does anyone else know of such cases? Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 21:33:33 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:33:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: To prevent the spread of COVID see https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the shofar? Does it affect the sound? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Fri Aug 21 04:57:08 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:57:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21/8/20 12:33 am, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > To prevent the spread of COVID see > https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ > > What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the > shofar? Does it affect the sound? The OU says it doesn't appear to. https://www.ou.org/covid19/ 9. Shofar: An appropriate precaution during shofar blowing would be to place a surgical mask over the wider end of the shofar, as this does not appear to alter the sound of the shofar blast. Some may point the shofar out an open window or door, or near and towards the front wall or aron kodesh, facing away from the congregation. A single shofar should not be used by multiple people, and no barrier should be placed between the shofar and the mouth of the one blowing the shofar. Poskim have addressed when and how much to sound the shofar where the time in shul is seriously limited -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 12:07:00 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 15:07:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 07:33:33AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ > What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the > shofar? Does it affect the sound? As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does not affect the sound. But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer without specifying which kind(s) of masks they experimented with. The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else with sensitive hearing in the minyan, you need them to say they don't hear a difference if they personally wish to be yotzei.) But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use. Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices. Chodesh Tov! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but add justice, don't complain about heresy, Author: Widen Your Tent but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Sat Aug 22 17:47:42 2020 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 20:47:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:45 PM Micha Berger wrote: >> What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the >> shofar? Does it affect the sound? > As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does > not affect the sound. > But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer ... > The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound > of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else > with sensitive hearing in the minyan... > But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the > resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use. > Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from > the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices. I blow shofar for my shul. I have placed a surgical mask on the shofar and blew the shofar for the Rav both on and off without him looking at the shofar. He did not hear a real difference and I concurred. You can get a different sound from the shofar depending on how you place it on your lips and the amount of air used. Rav Shulman of YU / YI Midwood suggests blowing under your tallit or at a door without a mask on the shofar. From zev at sero.name Sun Aug 23 01:04:56 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 04:04:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does > not affect the sound. No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound, and is therefore permissible. I have no idea whether they're right, but this is what they say, and they know the halacha, so I assume they've done whatever is necessary to determine the metzius. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 06:11:31 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 09:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200823131130.GA6504@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 04:04:56AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does >> not affect the sound. > No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound... As per the rest of the post you're quoting: My comment was that they take it for granted that the mask(s) they tested with are indicative of the mask a member shul may be using. I would not. (Had I been in the OU, I would have been more specific about which brand mask.) But I'm not questioning their pesaq that listening on the other side of the mask is the original qol and not a "qol havarah". ("Hatoqeia lesokh habor, mishnah RH, on top of 27b in Vilna Bavli) I therefore isolated their halachic stance which from their depiction of the mtzi'us. Because I wanted to raise the question whether, even leshitasam, is a piano tuner or other person with sensitive hearing can hear a difference the rest of us can't, would he be yotzei. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect http://www.aishdas.org/asp painting? It's easy. Author: Widen Your Tent Make yourself perfect and then just paint - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 19:45:48 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 22:45:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault Message-ID: . At the Eglah Arufa, the zekeinim declare, "Our hands did not spill this blood! Our eyes did not see!" I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: > The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly > responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any > stranger from our city without food (so that he might have > been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or > without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected > on a dangerous road)." How can the zekeinim have been so sure? Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed? We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident? I considered the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas Orchim organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never will happen. (The three listed there, if I read it correctly, are Ben Sorer Umoreh, Ir Hanidachas, and a house getting tzaraas.) But it's *not* listed there, so I suppose it might have happened, or at least, *could* happen. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Sun Aug 23 06:35:32 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 13:35:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed? > > We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident? > > ??????- I?m not sure these are Mutually exclusive. Perhaps they are saying that the fault is not systemic and of course we have to see where we fell short and try to improve on it Kt Joel RichTHIS 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 zev at sero.name Sun Aug 23 07:39:22 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 10:39:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22/8/20 10:45 pm, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I considered?the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only > done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the > Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas?Orchim > organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever > occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been > listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never > will happen. The answer seems very simple. Not even the most thorough hachnassas orchim will ever prevent all murders, because most crimes are *not* committed out of need. The idea that the victim was actually a robber who was killed in legitimate self-defence, but in a further plot twist he only robbed out of desperate need, and had the city's elders done their job this would never have happened, is very far-fetched. The overwhelming likelihood is that he was an innocent person who was killed by a robber who was acting out of greed or sheer wickedness, as *most* robbers do. The Zekeinim are merely ruling out that far-fetched scenario in which they would bear some responsibility. And if you ask why, in that case, do they have to go through this whole rigmarole to rule it out, I suggest that it's so that this possibility is always on their minds, and they do their utmost to make sure that in the unlikely even that a body is ever found they should be *able* to make this declaration. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Aug 23 06:27:37 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:27:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Going swimming with your sister Message-ID: I always thought that brothers and sisters (even teenagers) could go mixed swimming privately just the immediate family because we assume that there are no hirhurim among immediate family members. However, I listened to the Headlines podcast where he interviewed an Israeli posek from Machon Puah who claimed that it was forbidden. Anyone have any sources? Piskei Halacha from modern poskim? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Aug 23 09:24:06 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:24:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee Message-ID: From https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-will-be-travelling-and-would-like-to-know-if-there-is-a-concern-of-bishul-akum-with-coffee-a-consumers-question I will be travelling and would like to know if there is a concern of bishul akum with coffee? (A consumer's question) OU Kosher Certification Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel. Raw coffee beans are inedible, a... See the above URL for more. From zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 24 09:27:09 2020 From: zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com (Zalman Alpert) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 12:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As > previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh > al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel. > Raw coffee beans are inedible, a... Great example of what DR Hayym Soloveitchik wrote about in his seminal essay Rupture and Reconstruction. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Aug 24 10:49:59 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 13:49:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200824174959.GF11765@aishdas.org> Bishul aku"m only applies to foods that are olim al shulchan melakhim. Qiddush can be made on chamar medinah. Seems to be a lower standard, when it comes to drinks, as the masses are unlikely to be pickier than their kings. The AhS (OC 272:12) ranks yayin and then sheikhar ahead of other drinks, but does include sweetened tea among the things one may make qiddush on. Similarly, IM OC 2:75. (Likely an indication of the price of sugar, RYME names tei matoq in particular as chamar medinah, not just writing "tei". Another measure of their poverty is his discussing their general use of raisin wine, as a reason why they were allowed to choose sheikhar even if wine was available. Meaning, I don't know if the AhS would allow this choice for us today.) But I am wondering benogei'ah to our original topic is whether it's possible to formulate a consistent shitah in which coffee can not be used for Qiddush and also cannot be used if bishul aku"m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message http://www.aishdas.org/asp that God is not yet discouraged with Author: Widen Your Tent humanity. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabindranath Tagore From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Aug 24 11:18:23 2020 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 14:18:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: I have an even better solution. Have the baal tekiah get a Covid test now and then a couple days before R?H and if both tests are negative and he is in good health, the chances of him having the virus is almost zero. From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 24 16:08:22 2020 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 7:02 PM Cantor Wolberg wrote: > Have the baal tekiah get a Covid test now and then a couple days before > R"H and if both tests are negative and he is in good health, the > chances of him having the virus is almost zero. It is possible to catch the virus after getting tested. Most tests take days to come back; by then you are contagious. Only if you test positive for antibodies, do you know that you have had the virus. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Aug 24 18:33:48 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:33:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee Message-ID: . According to the OU at the link posted, > Nonetheless, the Pri Chodosh writes that brewed coffee need > not be bishul Yisroel, since coffee is primarily water, and > water does not require bishul Yisroel. I have difficulty following that logic. Granted that if one looks at the ingredients, coffee is indeed primarily water. But why is that fact more relevant than the importance that society gives to this beverage? R' Micha Berger pointed out that Chamar Medinah "seems to be a lower standard" than Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim, and I'd agree. But I think it's irrelevant, because it is obvious to me that coffee is Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim. The dessert at a state dinner would not be s'mores and Slurpees; it would be elegant cakes and coffee. I suspect that for some reason (possibly the fact that Bishul Akum has little to do with kashrus and much to do with limiting our social contact with non-Jews), the rabbis went out of their way to find leniencies for it, and drinks is an example of such a leniency; I suspect that it never occurred to Chazal to extend the gezera beyond solid foods. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Aug 26 09:49:29 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:49:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Honoring Step Parents & More Message-ID: Please see https://vosizneias.com/2020/08/26/honoring-step-parents-more/ I found this to be a very interesting article YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 23:07:38 2020 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:07:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: It seems more reasonable to blow under the tallis without a mask. After a while, the tokea has to shake water out of the shofar. Slightly challenging with a mask on it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 23:11:27 2020 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:11:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Davening_at_home_on_Yamim_Nora=E2=80=99im?= Message-ID: This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. We will miss out on much of the ?experience? of the piyutim. Does anyone know of guidelines for what to do at home, such as part of chazarat haShatz? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 05:57:18 2020 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:57:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im Message-ID: RChaim Tafel wrote: > This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul > for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. > We will miss out on much of the "experience" of > the piyutim. Does anyone know of guidelines for > what to do at home, such as part of chazarat haShatz? Say them all except for the few you should only ever say when you are shatz, for example the netilot reshut, like all the misod chakhamim unevonim lines and such as the Ochila (which really, in my opinion, despite the popular tunes, the tzibbur should never say, as it is the netilat reshut for the shatz to insert the seder ha'avodah). Also skip obviously hineni he'ani mima'as, as it is for the shatz. Also skip the E-lohein vE-lohei Avoteinu heyei 'im pifiyot (which in my opinion the shatz shouldn't ever say, as it is a prayer for the shatz' success recited by the public). Finally, obviously whenever the cachzor calls for reciting 13 middot, depending on the poskim you follow, either skip or recite with te'amim. Otherwise I see no reason why you couldn'T beautifully sing your way through the entire machzor. But don't use one of these butchered machzorim, go for the real, unabbreviated, full and complete Rdelheim. (I am assuming you're ashkenazi, because Sefardi piyutim are altogether different). [Email #2. -micha] By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata Hu E-loheinu. In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. I am obviously totally tolerant, but it is still poetically wrong, objectively so. ;-) Ketiva vachatima tova, -- Mit freundlichen Gren, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Aug 28 06:14:15 2020 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 07:53 AM 8/28/2020, Chaim Tate wrote: >This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul for Rosh Hashanah and >Yom Kippur. >We will miss out on much of the ?experience? of the piyutim. >Does anyone know of guidelines for what to do at home, such as part of >chazarat haShatz? The YI of Midwood sent out an email saying that no piyyutim will be said during the davening on the Yomim Noraim. After all in many shuls the davening on Shabbos has been curtailed due to concerns about the virus. (no speeches and no singing). In some shuls people have been told to daven up to Baruch She'omer before coming to shul. So you won't be missing anything if other shuls follow the YI of Midwood! Personally I hope they do. Long davening can lead to the spread of the virus even with proper social distancing. Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said the it is better to daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more that 15 minutes , IIRC. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From crclbas at aol.com Fri Aug 28 06:49:54 2020 From: crclbas at aol.com (BenS) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:49:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Yomim Tovim References: <2007338277.6646156.1598622594128.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2007338277.6646156.1598622594128@mail.yahoo.com> The RCA And? ?YU have sent suggestions for shuls who want to skip certain piyutim. ASk your Rov for these guidelines. This can also be used for those who must daven at home. But be sure to arrange for Shofar on the second day. Minimum of 30 Kolos are needed. Shonoh Tovah!! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Aug 30 06:53:54 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 13:53:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos Message-ID: Please see https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-want-to-order-a-new-cell-phone-and-am-not-particular-when-it-will-arrive-am-i-permitted-to-place-an-order-online-if-the-website-indicates-the-package-will-arrive-on-saturday/?category&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shsh%20Ki%20Teitzei%205780%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=32470835&spUserID=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&spJobID=1764350018&spReportId=MTc2NDM1MDAxOAS2 YL I want to order a new cell phone and am not particular when it will arrive. Am I permitted to place an order online if the website indicates the package will arrive on Saturday? | OU Kosher Certification The issue here is whether arranging a delivery for Shabbos constitutes Amirah li?akum (instructing a non-Jew to perform melacha on Shabbos), which is prohibited. One might assume that this is analogous to handing a letter to a non-Jew on Friday and a... oukosher.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Aug 29 19:57:19 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 22:57:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d Message-ID: . In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? This may happen elsewhere too, but this case stands out because the form changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out to Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the contrast? If the third person was reasonable in the first part, why switch to the first person later on? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Aug 31 13:58:44 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-want-to-order-a-new-cell-phone-and-am-not-particular-when-it-will-arrive-am-i-permitted-to-place-an-order-online-if-the-website-indicates-the-package-will-arrive-on-saturday > One may not place an order if the delivery will definitely take place > on Shabbos. For example, one cannot send a package with UPS or FedEx > on Friday and select ?next day delivery?. Similarly, one cannot order > a refrigerator or washing machine from a store and arrange for a > Saturday delivery. I disagree with the author on this. Since they could choose to deliver after Shabbos and still fulfil their obligation, you are not telling them to deliver on Shabbos. In the winter this could actually happen. But even in the summer, when you can be fairly sure they won't do that, that's their choice not yours; if they did arrive after Shabbos you would have no right to complain, so you are not asking them to work on Shabbos. Only if they guarantee that "all deliveries will be made during business hours" or something similar would you not be allowed to order a Saturday delivery. And even then, if there's a space for delivery notes, and you write that late night delivery will be OK, that should be enough to permit it, even if you can be fairly sure it won't change anything. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Sep 1 06:53:18 2020 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:53:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > > From: Akiva Miller > > In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today > to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) > > Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > This may happen elsewhere too, I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the G-d of Avraham, etc. Therefore, the layman refers to the G-d of the Kohane, whose biblical role is to teach of Hashem and His Torah and therefore conceptualized Hashem more accurately. (I would have to concede that at first sight this does not work in cases where the person bringing the Bikkurim is actually greater than the Kohane. One can answer that it's a matter of *lo plug, *using a fixed formula for everyone at all times, following the normal situation. Or I would modify my explanation to say that the Kohane may not necessarily have a higher conceptualization but, through his avodah, a unique one not shared by others, which is relevant to the Bikkurim bringer in his role as such.) but this case stands out because the form > changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out to > Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the contrast?... > I think the above explanation works to explain this. In fact, note that the farmer is referring to the G-d of our "ancestors," meaning G-d as understood by the avos. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 12:29:01 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:29:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901192901.GA18013@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:53:18AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > This may happen elsewhere too, > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > G-d of Avraham, etc... I would have written something very similar, if RAM's email weren't still flagged "to do" in my email box when RZL's came in. However, I wouldn't have used the word "hasagah". I would have talked about the need to list "E-lokei Avraham", "E-lokai Yitzchaq" and "E-lokai Yaaqov" separately. To me, it speaks to the idea that the avos each had distinct relationships with the Borei. The "G-d of Avraham" was a different relationship than the G-d Yitzchaq "had" (kevayakhol). I don't know how RZL meant the word "hasagah", but to me it speaks to knowing *about* something. As in greater people have greater understandings of what G-d is. I would instead has said that "E-lokekha" is about the G-d the kohein has time to relate to more constantly than the farmer does. And it might also make the Vidui a statement about the farmer's relationship with G-d. Rather than who has more relationship, but about kidn of relationship. After all, the kohein may be learning, teaching and doing avodah all day, but the farmer teams up with G-d and relies on G-d to produce his crop. That's the point of the vidui -- that the G-d of Yetzias Mitzrayim gets credit for more day-to-day things my success. Something a kohein may only get more vicariously. So, he's saying to the kohein, "G-d is not only how you relate to Him from your ivory tower -- 'Your G-d', realize He also is intimately involved in my life and everyday life." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Interesting quote my signature generator chose from the perspective of being this close to the end of 5780. (Although we must remember, we are likely the first generation for whom life is normally so wonderful, this year qualified as a notably "bad" one.) -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 15:54:36 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901225436.GC18013@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:30:40PM -0400, Ken Bloom wrote: > Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one > should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in > finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. I'll give you "or elsewhere". Here's what I do. 1- During the year, I try to keep a cheshbon hanefesh. Laziness and momentum being what it is, that means that I usually have a journal of the decisions and reactions of a few 1 to 2 month stretches during the year. So, something I do early in Elul is review those, see patterns, what changed during the gaps... And trying to compensate changes because I was just focused on different things in different parts of the year. I then try to mentally fill in the gaps, as I can. And then I make a list of those issues in my reactions, decisions and actions that seem to have recurred a lot. It's often not the issues I was thinking I was failing at before I looked through notes. For that matter, even if you "just" keep a diary of your responses to the week -- not what happened to you, but how you responded to it -- from now to RH would give more insight to what habits and middos might really need the most attention. And to make that list, I try for a list of 2 to 4 items that both need the most attention and yet balanced with things I can actually tackle. For example, I have a long-running battle with ka'as. But it may not be the chink in the armor most ready to move. I might want to work on my frustration threshold, noting that my temper is very often the sum of frustration plus having someone I can pin blame on. And the plan has to be incremental. Not "starting YK I never will..." or "will always", but "starting YK I will take the first step to... which is..." For exmple, not expressing frustration in a given set of situations. Or maybe right after work for the first hour I'm home. Or whatever. 2- So much for correcting past mistakes. My other step is something Bank of America mislabeled Hoshin Planning that I adapted for life. https://www.aishdas.org/asp/hoshin-plan 2a- Find a Mission Statement At this point, I have a mission statement I aspire to live by. The first year, I didn't. I picked a quote from a sefer that at the time (and still) really moved me. Look for something from a seifer (including the siddur) that sums up life's mission for you. Is it about deveiqus? And if about deveiqus -- what does that mean to you? Knowledge (as per the Rambam)? Experiencing the Divine? Having a relationship with Hashem? Partnering with Him in His Work -- and what is His Work? Or maybe you see it in terms of sheleimus or temimus. But then, what is a person supposed to be, that you can talk about being more perfect at being one? Is it emulating Hashem? Or bein adam lachaveiro? Or maybe you're on another page altogether -- you see the Torah's mission for your life in terms of Jewish Nationhood, or humanity. And I realize many of those will yield different phrasing of nearly the same answer. But only nearly the same. There could be situations where connotations matter and have a nafqa mina lemaaseh. But in any case, it has to be moving and inspiring based on the way HQBH made you. In short -- a sentence or two about how you see what the Torah is telling you to be at this point in your life. After the first year, you tweak it and revise it as you change. 2b- Drilling down A Mission Statement is pointless if it doesn't have a way to influence action. In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for the firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could help reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division. His group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc... The idea is that there is an individual programmer like myself can be shown how my program fits in the team's goal, the group's goal and so on up to the firm's goal as written up in the Mission Statement. Similarly life's Mission Statement. We can divide it and subdivide it into managable lists. Maybe three bullet items as top-level goals to make the mission statament happen. And 2-4 each for each of those goals to make subgoals and so on. The idea is to get to the point that when you decide to go to the kitchen to get a cup of coffee, you have a way to relate that decision to the approach to living al pi haTorah that you framed for yourself. Let me give an example, taken from the above blog page. Since I wrote a book based on R Shimon's haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher, the quote would be no surprise. For that matter, ch. 2 is titled "Mission Statement" and is a collection of thoughts about the openining sentence of the haqdamah. See the first paragraph of the copy in Widen Your Tent sec 1.1, pg 45 of the book or pg 4 of https://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf#page=4 So, my orignal mission statement translates to (it is important to be in first person singular): [My] greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that [I] walk in His ways. Now I can divide that into three subgoals: - Having a connection to G-d - Internalizing His Will - Being a conduit of Hashem's Good into the lives of others. Internalizing His will, for example, was first subdivided into - Daily learning (which is what drives projects like AhS Yomi) - Daily Mussar work (like what I'm describing in this post), and - Regular in-depth learning -- chavrusos, shiurim, etc... Notice at this point I can start filling in things I can do this year. What learning? Which shiurim? As in part 1 -- which middos and what are the first months' exercises to chip away at them. (And buying a pretty new notebook. Somehow I do best at cheshbon hanefesh when I have a kewl new toy to do it with.) Hopefully, by month end when this "Spiritual Hoshin Plan" is done, I can pause in the middle of the workday and be able to say for myself that I'm putting up with this irate trader on the phone (I work for a Hedge Fund) so that I can pay for tuition (goal 3.2.4.2.5 or some-such), I can develop my personal creativity (as per 1.2... as being in the image of the Creator is something I view as a Mussar goal), etc.. And thereby give sanctity to an otherwise mundane (and stressfull) activity. And then every year things shift. Both in how I look at the world and in what are the pressing issues requiring more attention. Where parenting sits in the hierarchy was very different when I started than now that my youngest is a teenager. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. http://www.aishdas.org/asp It preserves health, promotes convalescence, Author: Widen Your Tent and helps us cope with adversity. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 12:46:48 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:46:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901194648.GB18013@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:45:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In > the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: >> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly >> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any >> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have >> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or >> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected >> on a dangerous road)." > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed > through unnoticed? Does it say that unnoticed strangers are included? The gemara (Sotah 46b) says (original at https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.9 ): Would it cross our minds that BD were murderers? Rather [they are saying]: He did not come to us and we dismissed him without food. We didn't see him and leave him without accompaniment. My translation matches the TMS's, minus their parenthetic comments. (Which I will now assume is the author's insertions, rather than part of the medrash.) The two phrases "lo ba leyadeinu" and "vera'inhu" seem to me to mean the BD are saying that the didn't neglect anyone they knew of. That not knowing the person was in town would be one of the reasons they wouldn't be guilty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the http://www.aishdas.org/asp better if possible, and of changing himself for Author: Widen Your Tent the better if necessary. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 05:00:31 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos Message-ID: . Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day away. I think it is assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. In contrast, if I request Monday delivery, that would be okay, even though I know that they'll be working for me on Shabbos, because it was their choice to work on Saturday rather than Sunday. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 07:11:20 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:11:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:00:31AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? Well, if there isn't a contracted delivery date of Shabbos, then it's their choice whether to do melakhah for you on Shabbos, Friday or Sunday. The package could sit around in a transfer facility for 25 hours while they deal with more urgent packages if it's not the delivery date. The choice is theirs. But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. I guess in the case of (eg) 3 day delivery, since it wouldn't violate the contract to get it there in 2, someone might argue that you aren't asking them to do the delivery on Shabbos. But I don't know if mutar alternatives matter even when they're implausible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Sep 2 11:46:49 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:46:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66cf413b-bbfa-c02e-885f-8a8bb7e152ce@sero.name> On 2/9/20 8:00 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day > away. I think it is?assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know > that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. I agree, *if* you know where it's coming from, and that it's not bich'dei sheyei'asu without working on Shabbos. But in the general case you don't know that, and I don't see why you have to worry about it just on spec. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 17:45:46 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:45:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said that it is better to daven a > little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that > selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more than 15 > minutes, IIRC. It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time that's been taken from them. Much more important is the speed at which it is said. If the length of time would remain constant, but pages were skipped so that the rest could be said carefully and attentively, THAT'S what Chazal meant by "better to daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Sep 2 13:49:48 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:49:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. ------------------------------- And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's Saturday delivery and you say nothing? KVCT 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 akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 18:08:38 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:08:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: . In the thread "Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im", R' Arie Folger wrote: > By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper > recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused > wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata > Hu E-loheinu. > > In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to > read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next > line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the > opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, > so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the > proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. I can see where some people might read the above, and feel that Rabbi Folger is being subjective and arbitrary in his choices of "proper" and "wrong". I had my brain all psyched up to spend the next hour or so writing a post to explain how he is objectively correct, and then I remembered that we covered this ground four years ago. Anyone who wants to learn more about how the recitation of these piyutim got messed up is strongly invited to review the thread "conservatism in davening" at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CONSERVATISM%20IN%20DAVENING Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mzeldman2 at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 00:33:32 2020 From: mzeldman2 at gmail.com (Moshe Zeldman) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 10:33:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If one should not say ?starting YK I will never...?, then how does that fit with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the vidui is saying ?and I will never do X again?? It sounds difficult to read into the Rambam that he means ?I?m still going to be doing X but I have a plan to eventually stop? On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 4:12 wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > > avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/ > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms > > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Hashem your G-d (Zvi Lampel) > > 2. Re: Hashem your G-d (Micha Berger) > > 3. Re: What to do in Elul? (Micha Berger) > > 4. Re: It's not our fault (Micha Berger) > > 5. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Akiva Miller) > > 6. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Micha Berger) > > 7. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Zev Sero) > > 8. Re: Davening at home on Yamim Noraim (Akiva Miller) > > 9. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Rich, Joel) > > 10. Re: conservatism in davening (Akiva Miller) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:53:18 -0400 > > From: Zvi Lampel > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , > > Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d > > Message-ID: > > < > CAPxEyabfrsb8kDLQzd7BTYpcZcQqOcyaDrjdZbyW8pD-K46QbA at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > > > > > > > > From: Akiva Miller > > > > > > In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today > > > to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) > > > > > > Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > > > > > This may happen elsewhere too, > > > > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher > > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers > > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > > G-d of Avraham, etc. Therefore, the layman refers to the G-d of the Kohane, > > whose biblical role is to teach of Hashem and His Torah and therefore > > conceptualized Hashem more accurately. > > > > (I would have to concede that at first sight this does not work in > > cases where the person bringing the Bikkurim is actually greater than the > > Kohane. One can answer that it's a matter of *lo plug, *using a fixed > > formula for everyone at all times, following the normal situation. Or I > > would modify my explanation to say that the Kohane may not necessarily have > > a higher conceptualization but, through his avodah, a unique one not shared > > by others, which is relevant to the Bikkurim bringer in his role as such.) > > > > but this case stands out because the form > > > changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out > to > > > Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the > contrast?... > > > > > > > I think the above explanation works to explain this. In fact, note that the > > farmer is referring to the G-d of our "ancestors," meaning G-d as > > understood by the avos. > > > > Zvi Lampel > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200901/89f8687e/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:29:01 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller , Zvi Lampel > > > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d > > Message-ID: <20200901192901.GA18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:53:18AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > > >> Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > > > > > This may happen elsewhere too, > > > > > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are > higher > > > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and > refers > > > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > > > G-d of Avraham, etc... > > > > I would have written something very similar, if RAM's email weren't still > > flagged "to do" in my email box when RZL's came in. > > > > However, I wouldn't have used the word "hasagah". I would have talked about > > the need to list "E-lokei Avraham", "E-lokai Yitzchaq" and "E-lokai Yaaqov" > > separately. > > > > To me, it speaks to the idea that the avos each had distinct relationships > > with the Borei. The "G-d of Avraham" was a different relationship than > > the G-d Yitzchaq "had" (kevayakhol). > > > > I don't know how RZL meant the word "hasagah", but to me it speaks to > knowing > > *about* something. As in greater people have greater understandings of what > > G-d is. > > > > I would instead has said that "E-lokekha" is about the G-d the kohein has > > time to relate to more constantly than the farmer does. > > > > And it might also make the Vidui a statement about the farmer's > > relationship with G-d. Rather than who has more relationship, but about > > kidn of relationship. > > > > After all, the kohein may be learning, teaching and doing avodah all > > day, but the farmer teams up with G-d and relies on G-d to produce his > > crop. That's the point of the vidui -- that the G-d of Yetzias Mitzrayim > > gets credit for more day-to-day things my success. Something a kohein > > may only get more vicariously. > > > > So, he's saying to the kohein, "G-d is not only how you relate to Him > > from your ivory tower -- 'Your G-d', realize He also is intimately > > involved in my life and everyday life." > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger If you're going through hell > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. > > Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > PS: Interesting quote my signature generator chose from the perspective > > of being this close to the end of 5780. (Although we must remember, we > > are likely the first generation for whom life is normally so wonderful, > > this year qualified as a notably "bad" one.) > > > > -- > > Micha Berger If you're going through hell > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. > > Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:54:36 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: avodah at aishdas.org, Ken Bloom > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? > > Message-ID: <20200901225436.GC18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:30:40PM -0400, Ken Bloom wrote: > > > Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what > one > > > should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in > > > finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. > > > > I'll give you "or elsewhere". Here's what I do. > > > > 1- > > > > During the year, I try to keep a cheshbon hanefesh. Laziness and momentum > > being what it is, that means that I usually have a journal of the decisions > > and reactions of a few 1 to 2 month stretches during the year. > > > > So, something I do early in Elul is review those, see patterns, what > > changed during the gaps... And trying to compensate changes because I > > was just focused on different things in different parts of the year. > > I then try to mentally fill in the gaps, as I can. And then I make a > > list of those issues in my reactions, decisions and actions that seem > > to have recurred a lot. It's often not the issues I was thinking I was > > failing at before I looked through notes. > > > > For that matter, even if you "just" keep a diary of your responses to the > > week -- not what happened to you, but how you responded to it -- from now > > to RH would give more insight to what habits and middos might really need > > the most attention. > > > > And to make that list, I try for a list of 2 to 4 items that both need the > > most attention and yet balanced with things I can actually tackle. For > > example, I have a long-running battle with ka'as. But it may not be > > the chink in the armor most ready to move. I might want to work on my > > frustration threshold, noting that my temper is very often the sum of > > frustration plus having someone I can pin blame on. > > > > And the plan has to be incremental. Not "starting YK I never will..." > > or "will always", but "starting YK I will take the first step to... > > which is..." > > > > For exmple, not expressing frustration in a given set of situations. > > Or maybe right after work for the first hour I'm home. Or whatever. > > > > 2- > > > > So much for correcting past mistakes. My other step is something > > Bank of America mislabeled Hoshin Planning that I adapted for life. > > > > https://www.aishdas.org/asp/hoshin-plan > > > > 2a- Find a Mission Statement > > > > At this point, I have a mission statement I aspire to live by. > > > > The first year, I didn't. I picked a quote from a sefer that at the time > > (and still) really moved me. Look for something from a seifer (including > > the siddur) that sums up life's mission for you. Is it about deveiqus? > > And if about deveiqus -- what does that mean to you? Knowledge (as per > > the Rambam)? Experiencing the Divine? Having a relationship with Hashem? > > Partnering with Him in His Work -- and what is His Work? Or maybe you see > > it in terms of sheleimus or temimus. But then, what is a person supposed > > to be, that you can talk about being more perfect at being one? Is it > > emulating Hashem? Or bein adam lachaveiro? Or maybe you're on another > > page altogether -- you see the Torah's mission for your life in terms > > of Jewish Nationhood, or humanity. > > > > And I realize many of those will yield different phrasing of nearly the > same > > answer. But only nearly the same. There could be situations where > connotations > > matter and have a nafqa mina lemaaseh. But in any case, it has to be moving > > and inspiring based on the way HQBH made you. > > > > In short -- a sentence or two about how you see what the Torah is telling > > you to be at this point in your life. > > > > After the first year, you tweak it and revise it as you change. > > > > 2b- Drilling down > > > > A Mission Statement is pointless if it doesn't have a way to influence > > action. > > > > In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for the > > firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could help > > reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division. His > > group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc... The idea is that > > there is an individual programmer like myself can be shown how my program > > fits in the team's goal, the group's goal and so on up to the firm's goal > > as written up in the Mission Statement. > > > > Similarly life's Mission Statement. We can divide it and subdivide it > > into managable lists. Maybe three bullet items as top-level goals to > > make the mission statament happen. And 2-4 each for each of those > > goals to make subgoals and so on. > > > > The idea is to get to the point that when you decide to go to the kitchen > > to get a cup of coffee, you have a way to relate that decision to the > > approach to living al pi haTorah that you framed for yourself. > > > > Let me give an example, taken from the above blog page. > > > > Since I wrote a book based on R Shimon's haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher, > > the quote would be no surprise. For that matter, ch. 2 is titled > > "Mission Statement" and is a collection of thoughts about the > > openining sentence of the haqdamah. See the first paragraph of > > the copy in Widen Your Tent sec 1.1, pg 45 of the book or pg 4 of > > https://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf#page=4 > > > > So, my orignal mission statement translates to (it is important to > > be in first person singular): > > [My] greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals > > and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator > > (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according > > to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the > > creations. So too His Will is that [I] walk in His ways. > > > > Now I can divide that into three subgoals: > > - Having a connection to G-d > > - Internalizing His Will > > - Being a conduit of Hashem's Good into the lives of others. > > > > Internalizing His will, for example, was first subdivided into > > - Daily learning (which is what drives projects like AhS Yomi) > > - Daily Mussar work (like what I'm describing in this post), and > > - Regular in-depth learning -- chavrusos, shiurim, etc... > > > > Notice at this point I can start filling in things I can do this year. > > What learning? Which shiurim? As in part 1 -- which middos and what are > > the first months' exercises to chip away at them. (And buying a pretty > > new notebook. Somehow I do best at cheshbon hanefesh when I have a > > kewl new toy to do it with.) > > > > Hopefully, by month end when this "Spiritual Hoshin Plan" is done, I > > can pause in the middle of the workday and be able to say for myself > > that I'm putting up with this irate trader on the phone (I work for a > > Hedge Fund) so that I can pay for tuition (goal 3.2.4.2.5 or some-such), > > I can develop my personal creativity (as per 1.2... as being in the > > image of the Creator is something I view as a Mussar goal), etc.. And > > thereby give sanctity to an otherwise mundane (and stressfull) activity. > > > > And then every year things shift. Both in how I look at the world and in > > what are the pressing issues requiring more attention. Where parenting > > sits in the hierarchy was very different when I started than now that my > > youngest is a teenager. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable > treasure. > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp It preserves health, promotes convalescence, > > Author: Widen Your Tent and helps us cope with adversity. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of > Mishlei" > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:46:48 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] It's not our fault > > Message-ID: <20200901194648.GB18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:45:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > > > I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In > > > the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: > > > > >> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly > > >> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any > > >> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have > > >> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or > > >> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected > > >> on a dangerous road)." > > > > > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > > > > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have > passed > > > through unnoticed? > > > > Does it say that unnoticed strangers are included? > > > > The gemara (Sotah 46b) says (original at > https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.9 ): > > Would it cross our minds that BD were murderers? > > > > Rather [they are saying]: He did not come to us and we dismissed him > > without food. We didn't see him and leave him without accompaniment. > > > > My translation matches the TMS's, minus their parenthetic comments. (Which > > I will now assume is the author's insertions, rather than part of the > > medrash.) > > > > The two phrases "lo ba leyadeinu" and "vera'inhu" seem to me to mean > > the BD are saying that the didn't neglect anyone they knew of. That not > > knowing the person was in town would be one of the reasons they wouldn't > > be guilty. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp better if possible, and of changing himself > for > > Author: Widen Your Tent the better if necessary. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Victor Frankl, Man's search for > Meaning > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:31 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: > > KNCNNA at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on > > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? > > > > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day away. I > > think it is assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know that it won't > > be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. In contrast, > > if I request Monday delivery, that would be okay, even though I know that > > they'll be working for me on Shabbos, because it was their choice to work > > on Saturday rather than Sunday. > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/5837fd1d/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:11:20 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: <20200902141120.GA27483 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:00:31AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus > on > > > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? > > > > Well, if there isn't a contracted delivery date of Shabbos, then it's > > their choice whether to do melakhah for you on Shabbos, Friday or Sunday. > > The package could sit around in a transfer facility for 25 hours while > > they deal with more urgent packages if it's not the delivery date. The > > choice is theirs. > > > > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > > > > I guess in the case of (eg) 3 day delivery, since it wouldn't violate the > > contract to get it there in 2, someone might argue that you aren't > > asking them to do the delivery on Shabbos. But I don't know if mutar > > alternatives matter even when they're implausible. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his > fellow > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew > worries > > Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's > stomach. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:46:49 -0400 > > From: Zev Sero > > To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: <66cf413b-bbfa-c02e-885f-8a8bb7e152ce at sero.name> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > > On 2/9/20 8:00 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day > > > away. I think it is?assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know > > > that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during > Shabbos. > > > > I agree, *if* you know where it's coming from, and that it's not > > bich'dei sheyei'asu without working on Shabbos. But in the general case > > you don't know that, and I don't see why you have to worry about it just > > on spec. > > > > -- > > Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer > > zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:45:46 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim > > Message-ID: > > < > CABiM0c+1patT7b5FcLCxbn8wuZsCXzmoGyC846J6cQxP-9JJjQ at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > > > > > Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said that it is better to daven a > > > little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that > > > selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more than 15 > > > minutes, IIRC. > > > > It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing > > to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better > > than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time > > that's been taken from them. > > > > Much more important is the speed at which it is said. If the length of time > > would remain constant, but pages were skipped so that the rest could be > > said carefully and attentively, THAT'S what Chazal meant by "better to > > daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without." > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/455f462f/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 9 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:49:48 +0000 > > From: "Rich, Joel" > > To: 'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group' > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: > > < > CY4PR02MB25993558995FE1F789868116BF2F0 at CY4PR02MB2599.namprd02.prod.outlook.com > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > > ------------------------------- > > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's > Saturday delivery and you say nothing? > > KVCT > > 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 10 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:08:38 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] conservatism in davening > > Message-ID: > > < > CABiM0cJ4esqYBS9zWh5bP1UnGZYs67zrTwZ+HeYOcVVLWc9ULw at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > In the thread "Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im", R' Arie Folger wrote: > > > > > By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper > > > recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused > > > wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata > > > Hu E-loheinu. > > > > > > In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to > > > read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next > > > line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the > > > opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, > > > so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the > > > proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. > > > > I can see where some people might read the above, and feel that Rabbi > > Folger is being subjective and arbitrary in his choices of "proper" and > > "wrong". I had my brain all psyched up to spend the next hour or so writing > > a post to explain how he is objectively correct, and then I remembered that > > we covered this ground four years ago. > > > > Anyone who wants to learn more about how the recitation of these piyutim > > got messed up is strongly invited to review the thread "conservatism in > > davening" at > > > https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CONSERVATISM%20IN%20DAVENING > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/fc503c3c/attachment.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Avodah mailing list > > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah > > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 38, Issue 72 > > ************************************** > > -- ----------------------------- Moshe Zeldman Israel: (+972) 54 256 2888 US/Canada: 647 580 8965 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 18:34:46 2020 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:34:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d Message-ID: In Avodah V38n72, RZL noted: > This may happen elsewhere too < The first example which came into my mind when I saw RAMiller's message was a phrase in the P'Zachor *haftara* -- see I Sam 15:15. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 3 09:09:03 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 12:09:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <15e6bfd6-3399-dbb5-a721-6671f0b31da4@sero.name> On 2/9/20 4:49 pm, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > ------------------------------- > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's Saturday delivery and you say nothing? That should be fine. It's their decision, not yours. You told them you don't mind if they deliver it on Sunday. It's the same as dropping something off at the cleaners right before Shabbos and telling them you want it by 6 AM on Sunday. Since they could work on it all night Motzei Shabbos, you're fine, even though you know they will choose not to. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 18:13:02 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 21:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul Message-ID: . R' Moshe Zeldman asked: > If one should not say "starting YK I will never...", then how > does that fit with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the > vidui is saying "and I will never do X again"? > It sounds difficult to read into the Rambam that he means "I'm > still going to be doing X but I have a plan to eventually stop" Yes, the Rambam does say that at the beginning of Perek 1. But Perek 2 is all about less-than-ideal sorts of teshuva. I concede that I didn't notice the Rambam explicitly mentioning this weaning as a legitimate less-than-ideal form of teshuva. But still, it is hard for me to imagine that he would invalidate someone who said, "I did it, and I should not have done it, and I feel sorry that I did it, and in the future I will do it less than I used to." And even if the Rambam *would* say that such a person has *not* done teshuva, remember the context in which this idea was suggested: a person who has repeatedly found this particular aveira unusually difficult to conquer. Imagine further, that this person succeeds in a slow elimination of this aveira, and after many years - decades perhaps - he has finally conquered it. Such a person would certainly be no less of a Baal Teshuva than the one who the Rambam described in the middle section of halacha 2:1: "Even if he didn't do teshuva until his elderly days, and when it was impossible for his to do what he used to do, even though it's not an excellent teshuva, it still helps him, and he is a Baal Teshuva." Please note that this person described by the Rambam did not even begin regretting his sins until he was too old to do them. That's NOT the case we're discussing. We're discussing someone who still has to battle the yetzer hara. I can't help but wonder if this person, who executed a long, slow, but ultimately successful plan, might get the mitzva of Teshuva retroactively, to the beginning of that plan, maybe even according to the Rambam. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 10:43:29 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:43:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200904174329.GB3095@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:33:32AM +0300, Moshe Zeldman via Avodah wrote: > If one should not say "starting YK I will never...", then how does that fit > with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the vidui is saying "and I > will never do X again"? I'm going to shift topics a little from what the Rambam says should be done to what experience (and 20th cent Mussar sefarim) has shown does work. Lots of diets I promised myself I would start right after the chagim never happened. So, I don't think there is much commitment in "starting YK I will never..." Maybe we should be following the incremental approach... Promising now to take steps that by Yom Kippur I would be up to not doing X again, and by Chanukah not doing X-1, and by Pesach, X-2, and by next YK... Again, not claiming you can read that into the Rambam. But it does fit the Rambam's requirements for vidui while still having more chance of success than expecitng to be able to permanently change habits and character on a dime. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. http://www.aishdas.org/asp The purpose of life Author: Widen Your Tent is to give it away. -- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -- Pablo Picasso From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 10:58:49 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:58:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200904175849.GC3095@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:45:46PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing > to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better > than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time > that's been taken from them. Speaking specifically of "echad hamarbeh. ve'echad hamam'it..." and not trying to fit more services into the same number of rooms in the same morning or other pandemic issues... The idea is usually invoked for those of us who abbreviate Pesuqei deZimra in order to say fewer peraqim of Tehillim in the same time the minyan is saying more of them. Not to save time, but to spend more thought and similar time on fewer actions (in this case, speech). BUT... The past century has seen a HUGE shrinkage (sorry for the oxymoron) in attention spans. So, the more likely alternative of 15 minutes of rushed mumbeling may be better than an hour of mumbling while one's mind wanders. For many people, even on Yamim Noraim. May even have a net minus in the minimal kavanah of a rushed mumble. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] http://www.aishdas.org/asp isn't complete with being careful in the laws Author: Widen Your Tent of Passover. One must also be very careful in - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:48:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 14:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20200904184852.GD3095@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:49:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >> But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after >> hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's > Saturday delivery and you say nothing? Can it depend on who makes the decision? What if I ask one set of people to deliver my package, but another set of people make it impossible for them to get into the warehouse / vehicle on Sunday? And if I could guess as much that even if they wanted to deliver on Sunday it's not really in their power to do so? :-)BBii! -Micha From seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:25 2020 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2020 10:31:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avos - Shepherds Message-ID: The Avos ? Forefathers - (and Moshe Rabbeinu and Dovid HaMelech and others) were shepherds. Did they eat sheep? The few times when eating from the flock is mentioned, it seems to be goats (eg, Rivka feeding Yitzchak). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Sep 6 13:24:42 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:24:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Use a Public Grill? Message-ID: >From https://www.kosher.com/lifestyle/can-one-use-a-public-grill-1259 [https://www.kosher.com/resized/open_graph/s/h/shutterstock_442567648_banner.jpg] Can One Use a Public Grill? | Lifestyle | Kosher.com Shailah of the Week by Rabbi Zvi Nussbaum Rabbinic Coordinator, Kosher Hotline Administrator for the Orthodox Union Since a campground grill has been used to cook non-kosher foods (non-kosher meats and fish...), it may not be used unless it is properly kashered. The only way to kasher a gr... www.kosher.com Since a campground grill has been used to cook non-kosher foods (non-kosher meats and fish...), it may not be used unless it is properly kashered. The only way to kasher a grill top is with libun gamur (heating until the entire surface of the grill top rack becomes red hot). This can be accomplished by submerging the surface of the grill into burning charcoal. Even if the grill was used within the past 24 hours to cook non-kosher, and even if the grill had not been cleaned, it may still be kashered in this manner, since the intense heat will burn up all non-kosher residue and taste. There is no need to tovel the grill (immerse the grill in a mikvah), since it does not belong to you. It is owned by the park. Instead of kashering the grill, an easier option is to bring along your own grill top and a couple of bricks. If the non-kosher grill can be lifted out of the way, the kosher grill may be put in its place, balanced on the bricks. If you purchase a new grill top, it must be toveled before it is used. A third option is to double wrap your food with two layers of aluminum foil. Once properly wrapped, they may be placed directly on the non-kosher grill. In this case, it is better to clean the grill top first, or let the coals burn off the grease, before placing the double-wrapped food on top. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Sep 6 13:49:28 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:49:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pas Yisroel Message-ID: See https://www.crcweb.org/Pas%20Yisroel%20article%20.pdf Pas Yisroel during Aseres Y?mei Teshuvah Pas Yisroel By: Rabbi Dovid Cohen Administrative Rabbinic Coordinator, cRc Background In the times of the Mishnah, and possible even earlier, Chazal www.crcweb.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Sep 7 04:02:28 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:02:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] 10PM Slichot Message-ID: Anyone know why R' Moshe in O"C 2:105 didn't suggest pre-shacharit slichot rather than 10Pm slichot as a stand in for chatzot (midnight) slichot on the first night of slichot when there was a clear and present danger? Kvct 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 michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 11:26:57 2020 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:26:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another example, seen via this week's ShMOT: Deu 31 :26. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolberg at yebo.co.za Mon Sep 7 03:41:23 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 12:41:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 Message-ID: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> "And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. And so paskened the Geonei Olam for about [the last] eighty years. And this is the essential halocha." I have several questions about this. 1. Surely the use of Yiddish translations was very common and accepted? 2. Is this a response to the Reform use of German translations? 3. While the translation of the Shema might be problematic, translation of shemoneh esrei and brochas is surely not the same issue? From zev at sero.name Tue Sep 8 08:01:13 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 11:01:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10PM Slichot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0c0a2053-cf70-2689-d048-d3d3a7c9eab4@sero.name> On 7/9/20 7:02 am, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Anyone know why R? Moshe in O?C 2:105 didn?t suggest pre-shacharit > slichot rather than 10Pm slichot as a stand in for chatzot (midnight) > slichot on the first night of slichot when there was a clear and present > danger? The teshuva isn't about the first night, it's about all the days of selichos, and the situation is that it's impossible to do it either at midnight *or* before dawn. He takes it for granted that selichos must be said at night, Kumi Roni Valayla, and at an Eis Ratzon, which means any time between midnight and dawn, and says the minhag to do it at the end of the night, before dawn, is for convenience. So he reluctantly allows it after the first third of the night, with the proviso that it must be publicised that this is a hora'as sha'ah. Why doesn't he even consider doing it in the morning after daylight? I can think of two possibilities: Perhaps because selichos must be at night; or perhaps because people have to go to work and can't fit selichos in at their normal time for shacharis, and it's already posited in the question that for some reason they can't start earlier. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781 zev at sero.name "May this year and its curses end May a new year and its blessings begin" From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 11:43:48 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 14:43:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dates from Ancient Genes and Koseves Message-ID: <20200908184348.GA9440@aishdas.org> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/07/world/middleeast/israel-judean-dates-agriculture.html KETURA, Israel The plump, golden-brown dates hanging in a bunch just above the sandy soil were finally ready to pick. They had been slowly ripening in the desert heat for months. But the young tree on which they grew had a much more ancient history sprouting from a 2,000-year-old seed retrieved from an archaeological site in the Judean wilderness. Quick, can someone get the volume of these things before Yom Kippur? Kidding aside.... Do people think that the shiur of a kekoseves should be re-assessed, if necessary, based on this newly available data? RYBS, and his version of R Chaim's argument against Radziner tekheiles (or his argument against assuming orez = rice) would imply we don't. Halakhah can only be founded upon mesorah, not scientific data. My summary of that section of Nefesh haRav is at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n073.shtml#12 Anyone want to provide meqoros for other opinions? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... http://www.aishdas.org/asp ... but you're the pilot. Author: Widen Your Tent - R' Zelig Pliskin - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Sep 8 17:48:57 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 00:48:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] directed donations Message-ID: Question someone I know got concerning a contribution: Do you want your donation to the shul to be ?????? ???? ??? Response: I?d go with anonymous and pray that hkbh directs his accountant to allocate it to where it?s most needed. As a matter fact maybe that should be the inscription Thoughts? Kvct 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 llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 9 05:50:41 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 12:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 565:5) writes that the ?Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim? (thirteen attributes of mercy, Shemos 34:6-7) may not be recited unless there is a minyan. When these pesukim are recited in the context of prayer, they have the elevated status of a ?davar she?bikedusha,? like Kaddish or Kedusha, that may only be said in the presence of a minyan. The Mishnah Berurah (581:4) writes that Selichos that mention the Yud Gimmel Middos may be said, provided that those lines are skipped. If one prefers to say the Yud Gimmel Middos, he may do so if he recites them with the trop (cantillation) used for krias haTorah, as that indicates that it is not being recited as a tefillah (M?B 565:12). Mishnah Berurah also adds that any Selichos that are written in Aramaic should be skipped. The basis for this is the Gemara (Sotah 33a), in which Rebbi Yochanan states that angels do not deliver prayers that were recited in Aramaic, but when praying with a minyan one does not need the assistance of angels. Hashem?s presence is in the midst of the minyan and there is no need for angelic intervention. The Mishnah Berurah concludes, if there is no minyan at the beginning of Selichos, Kaddish is not said after Ashrei. Instead, the group should begin reciting Selichos. When the tenth man arrives, the congregation should recite three pesukim together, recite Kaddish and then continue from where they left off. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Sep 10 05:44:42 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:44:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When to Say Se;lichos Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. What is preferable? To wake up early and recite Selichos before dawn (a.k.a. alos hashachar, which is 72 minutes before sunrise), or to stay up late and recite Selichos after chatzos (midnight)? What about saying selichos after alos or after neitz hachama (sunrise)? A. Rav Yitzchak Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Yoma 22a) writes that the preferred time to recite Selichos is before dawn. This can be inferred from the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 3:4) who writes that it is customay to awake at night and recite Selichos until the morning. In addition, Mishnah Berurah (581:1) writes that the end of the night is an eis rotzon (a propitious time when G-d is receptive to prayer), implying that the early mornoing is the most appropriate time for Selichos. Finally, the She?arim Metzuyanim B?Halacah (Yoma 22a) notes that Selichos recited in the early morning is more effective, since it is recited through greater sacrifice; it is more difficult to wake up early than to stay up late. May Selichos be rected after sunrise? Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Divrei Si?ach, vol. 134) holds that it is preferable to recite Selichos after Chatzos than to recite Selichos later in the day after sunrise. On the otherhand, Rav Elyashav and Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach take an oposite opinion and write that it is better to recite Selichos in the daytime (even after sunrise) than to say it after chatzos (quoted in MB Dirshu MB, 581:1). Similiary, the Aruch Hashulchan writes that it has been customary to say selichos in the morning after sunrise for many generations. On the other hand, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt?l (Igros Moshe OC, 2:105) writes that kabalistically, the period after chatzos is as much an eis ratzon as early dawn, and for this reason, for many generations, it has been customary to recite Selichos at night after chatzos. This is also the opinion of the Minchas Elazar (the previous Munkatcher Rebbi), as recorded in Divrei Torah (141:76). Even those who recomend saying selichos in early morning before sunrise agree that on the first night of Selichos, on Motzei Shabbos, it is preferable to recite Selichos after Chatzos. This is because we wish to combine the merit of Shabbos together with the first Selichos. Therefore, we begin Selichos after Chatzos, and do not wait for the early morning (Chashukei Chemed, ibid.). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 15:12:12 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:12:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 In-Reply-To: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> References: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> Message-ID: <20200910221212.GB12180@aishdas.org> Sidenote: This se'if was recently studied by Arukh haShulchan Yomi. If you want to join us learning AhS Yomi, see the tools -- calendar, text, RYGB's YouTube playlist -- at http://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi ! AhS Yomi covers OC and the applicable portions of YD. (From egg spots to aveilus.) On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:41:23PM +0200, wolberg via Avodah wrote: >> And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the Shema and >> Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. >> And so paskened the Geonei Olam for about [the last] eighty years. And >> this is the essential halocha." ... > 1. Surely the use of Yiddish translations was very common and accepted? For women, yes. In fact, there is a script called Vaibrteitch because translations were in general considered for women. ("Women's Translation". "Teitch" evolved from the language name "Deutch".) Vaibrteitch is different than Rashi script. See examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaybertaytsh > 2. Is this a response to the Reform use of German translations? Likely. That bit about how they used to know Hebrew better is suspiciously post-facto sounding. Maybe when translating to another Semitic language, or to Greek using a millenia old tradition of Hebrew to Greek equivalences, we could have done better than we can to English. However, 600 years ago, translating to German, French or Spanish... No matter how well you know Hebrew, there is simply no close parallel to translate words to. A personal favorite when teaching Mussar is "yir'ah". Yir'ah is a range from awe to fear. Maybe the closest is "awareness of the magnitude of what you're facing" -- whether with admiration (awe) or thinking about risk (fear) or in another way. But because we are thinking "awe or fear" instead of a single concept, we cannot think about the middah of yir'as Shamayim in a fully authentic way. It's not two thing with an "or", or with a second thought about how they're related. It's a single territory that should be part of our gut's language about how we're feeling at a given point in time. In any case, it is true that real translation is impossible. I would faster *guess* that a machloqes about how close a translation may be got closed because the response to Reform forced our hand to choose one shitah over the other. > 3. While the translation of the Shema might be problematic, translation > of shemoneh esrei and brochas is surely not the same issue? Well, we cannot translation "Barukh Atah Hashem", at least not "barukh" or "Hashem" in any precise way. So, maybe not. I am not sure people really know what they mean when they say "blessed". But what is Barukh? - Source of increase - Maximally increased - May You -- in the form of the expression of Your Will in this world -- be incresed - An intentional ambiguity of all of the above? And sheim havayah pronounced as Adnus... - The Atemporal - The All-Compassionate - The Transcendent - The L-rd of All Etc... I would faster think the baqashos would be okay more than berakhos in general. Or maybe the body of the berakhah until the chasimah. As long as the translation is close enough so that it opens and wraps up with me'ein hachasimah. But lemaaseh, the AhS says that's not what "we hold". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. http://www.aishdas.org/asp - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:50:27 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Torah Musings] Why Did the Holocaust Happen Message-ID: <20200911175027.GA23887@aishdas.org> A survey by R Gil Student. https://www.torahmusings.com/2020/09/why-did-the-holocaust-happen/ (And a couple of the comments on his post.) :-)BBii! -Micha Torah Musing Why Did the Holocaust Happen? Posted by: Gil Student Posts Sep 7, 2020 As I reviewed the weekly Torah reading for this past Shabbos, which includes the tochekhah (Deut. 28), I was taken back to my teenage years, reading it one Saturday or Sunday afternoon and seeing Jewish history in it. To a non-religious Jewish teenager in the 1980's who grew up among survivors, the question of God in the Holocaust was not a faith issue that could be ignored. Reading the biblical text with minimal commentary (I think I used S.L. Gordon's secular commentary), I saw a prophecy that sin would lead to the kind of inhuman devastation seen in the Holocaust, a prediction that was fulfilled thousands of years later. To me, the Holocaust was not an impediment to faith but a convincing proof of Judaism's truth claims. Not everyone sees it that way. Many are offended by the very claim that the Holocaust was a divine punishment, although often due to objections that miss important discussions in traditional Jewish literature which we will mention briefly below. The issues are so sensitive, and during the 1970's and 1980's in particular the denominational conflicts were so strong, that unnecessarily forceful rhetoric turned an issue of faith into a weapon. In my opinion, a legitimate theological view has been dismissed due to heightened sensitivities and denominational politics. I. Five Approaches to the Holocaust Modern Orthodoxy has developed two main theologies of the Holocaust: 1) Hester Panim - God hid His face, turned away, and let mankind unleash wanton violence. R. Norman Lamm takes this approach in his [51]"The Face of God: Thoughts of the Holocaust". It is important to note that God hides His face (Deut. 31:17) due to Jewish sins (ibid., 16). (Some claim that brief mentions of hester panim by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik in his Kol Dodi Dofek constitute his adoption of this approach, but see R. Reuven Ziegler, Majesty and Humility, p. 277 n. 4, where he dismisses this interpretation.) 2) Free Will - God allows mankind the free will to sin, which includes the ability to murder and torture others. R. Eliezer Berkovits advocates this approach in his Faith After the Holocaust. The alternative approaches generally discussed are: 3) Anti-Zionism - The Satmar Rebbe's argument that Zionism led to the Holocaust, in his [52]Al Ha-Ge'ulah Ve-Al Ha-Temurah. 4) Zionism - The Religious Zionist argument that the Holocaust paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel. This view is attributed to R. Zvi Yehudah Kook (see Aviezer Ravitzky, Messianism, Zionism and Jewish Religious Radicalism, pp. 126-128). 5) Secularization - R. Avigdor Miller popularized the view that the assimilation and secularization of Jews in the 150 years prior to the Holocaust resulted in this punishment. R. Norman Lamm quotes this from R. Miller's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 278-279) and you can find quotes on the subject by searching [53]TorasAvigdor.org for the word "Holocaust". (A reader informed me that R. Miller has a book on the subject was posthumously published -- [54]A Divine Madness: Rabbi Avigdor Miller's Defense of Hashem in the Matter of the Holocaust.) II. The Slabodka Holocaust Theology I would like to explore here the approach of a Holocaust victim, Rav Avraham Grodzinski, the mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva who perished in 1944. I will be blending in another important view of Rav Grodzinski, along with his son-in-law Rav Shlomo Wolbe's presentation of Rav Grodzinski's approach in Rav Wolbe's (anonymously published) book of outreach speeches given in the wake of the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars (originally published as Bein Sheshes Le-Asor, later republished as Olam Ha-Yedidus). Rav Grodzinski's approach is most similar to that of Rav Miller, which is not surprising since the latter studied in the Slabodka yeshiva. However, I am not sure that Rav Miller developed it in the same way as Rav Grodzinski and he certainly did not present it in the same sensitive way as Rav Wolbe. [55]Rav Avraham Grodzinski succeeded Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel ("The Alter") as mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva, when the latter moved to Israel and established a branch of the yeshiva in Chevron. Rav Grodzinski (a brother-in-law of Rav Ya'akov Kamenetsky) stayed in Europe to the end, suffering a martyr's death in the Kovno Ghetto in 1944. He sent his writings to his students in Israel, who together with [56]his surviving sons published them in 1963 as Toras Avraham, a brilliant book of profound Mussar thought presented in the style of Talmudic thinking. [57]Rav Shlomo Wolbe first published Bein Sheshes Le-Asor anonymously in 1975, although it is clearly in his style and was posthumously republished by the foundation to publish his writings. The book consists mainly of his outreach lectures throughout Israel, spurred by the renewed interest in Israel awakened by the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War. The chapter on the Holocaust, however, was prepared for a class at the Bais Ya'akov of Jerusalem (commonly known as BJJ). I assume that Rav Wolbe included this chapter because he believes that this issue is important to those seeking to grow in faith. Rav Wolbe begins with a story emphasizing the importance of finding meaning in your suffering. It is obvious, he says, that we must help others by alleviating their suffering in any way possible. However, faith teaches us that there is meaning in suffering, a lesson to be learned. Rav Wolbe continues that even when God hides His face from us, there are no accidents. Therefore we must examine our lives to see what God wants from us. This is true not just for individuals but for nations as a whole. Throughout, Rav Wolbe quotes mainly biblical verses to prove his points, although I can think of many Talmudic passages that would do likewise. The believer is strengthened from the fact that destruction and suffering do not occur by happenstance but rather come guided by divine providence after ample warning. The traditional Jewish texts of the Bible, Talmud and Midrash warn us of the horrific consequences of sin. Rav Wolbe highlights in particular the language of the Gemara (Kesubos 111a), while sidestepping the specific Talmudic context, of "If not, I (God) will abandon your flesh like the gazelles and like the hinds of the field." Due to sin, Jewish flesh will be hunted like animals. Nobody, Rav Wolbe continues, is allowed to decide for what reason the Holocaust happened to us unless he personally suffered himself. Only a victim can conduct this examination of the generation. As we will later see, Rav Grodzinski did not necessarily agree with this. Perhaps Rav Wolbe set this condition for rhetorical purposes. Regardless, with that introduction, Rav Wolbe then invokes Rav Grodzinski's Holocaust theology. III. Suffering and Sins The introduction to Toras Avraham (1978 second edition, p. 17) describes how Rav Grodzinski discussed at length with his students in the Kovno Ghetto the spiritual causes of the Holocaust. He listed twelve primary sins, or areas where we were lacking, and exhorted them to strengthen the Jewish people in these areas if they survived the war. Rav Grodzinski wrote all these talks down but the writings were lost in the war. [58]Rav Mordechai Zuckerman survived and recorded the twelve lackings from memory. They are: 1) Faith 2) Shabbos observance 3) Family purity 4) Kosher food 5) Charging interest 6) Torah education of children 7) Wasting time that could be used for Torah study 8) Loving your fellow Jew 9) Lovingkindness (chesed) 10) Making do with less (histapkus) 11) Trust in God 12) The land of Israel (I don't know what this means in this context). I do not know if Rav Grodzinski applied Talmudic statements to his contemporary events, such as "seven punishments come to the world due to seven sins" (Avos 5:8), or if he looked at specific types of suffering and found the "measure for measure" in them, or a combination of both methods or something else. Because his writings were lost, we lack insight into his specific methodology. Regardless, I appreciate his general approach, as described below, and recognize that he used it to reach specific conclusions, which I find worthy as areas to strengthen ourselves. Rav Wolbe adds to the above list the general secularization of the Jewish people that began with Emancipation and continued with the Jewish Enlightenment. This was accompanied by widespread abandonment of Jewish faith and practice. Historically, he claims, every period of "enlightenment" has ended with Jewish tragedy. The Holocaust continues that historical cycle. I believe that Rav Grodzinski's Holocaust theology is intimately connected with his theology of suffering. In a series of lectures in late 1936 and early 1937, Rav Grodzinski explored the unique value of suffering to the religious personality. It might be worthwhile noting that since childhood, Rav Grodzinski suffered great physical pain that he overcame through sheer force of personality. Rav Grodzinski begins by pointing out what we lost as a nation and as individuals by the cessation of prophecy (roughly) after the destruction of the First Temple. The prophets informed us of our sins, directed us to the proper behavior, guided us to spiritual recovery. When prophecy ceased, we lost that guidance but were not left without any religious compass. Suffering shows us where we must focus. God punishes us measure for measure. Therefore, we can look at our suffering, our punishment, as a guide for where we need to improve our behavior. To some degree, suffering is more effective than prophecy. "The removal of Achashverosh's ring (for the sealing of Haman's decree) was more effective than the forty-eight prophets and the seven prophetesses who prophesied on behalf of the Jewish people. They all were unable to bring the Jewish people to repentance, but the removal of Achashverosh's ring brought them to repentance" (Megillah 14a). Additionally, suffering empowers you to find your own path to redemption, without the need for a third party, a prophet. Suffering not only directs you to improve but encourages you, offers you the incentive of freedom from suffering. Rav Grodzinski adds (p. 54) that suffering guides not only the sinners but others, as well. When we see someone suffering and understand the sin that caused it, we learn a very persuasive lesson about what behavior we should avoid. This is true also about the educational value of nations making flawed decisions that seal their fate. The suffering of nations teaches us what national mistakes to avoid (cf. Zephaniah 3:6-7). In Rav Grodzinski's view, a wise and learned person, steeped in Talmud and Midrash, can examine the suffering of the Holocaust to identify its underlying spiritual causes and learn from them. After conducting a careful examination, Rav Grodzinski reached his conclusions (unfortunately, his thought process was recorded in writing but lost) and beseeched his students to work to fix these spiritual problems. IV. Common Objections 1) Rav Wolbe concludes with a common question: Why did righteous people suffer in the Holocaust? He quotes Rav Grodzinski as explaining that the more righteous someone is, the harsher he is judged. R. Akiva suffered from Roman torture and murder because, we are told, "this intention arose before" God (Menachos 29b). What is that intention? Rashi (Gen. 1:1) says, "At first God intended to create the world under the attribute of strict justice, but He realized that the world could not thus endure and therefore gave priority to mercy combined with justice." R. Akiva and the other righteous individuals are judged with the initial intent, pure justice. Even without Rav Wolbe's interpretation of this passage, we see elsewhere that the righteous are judged by a hairbreadth (Yevamos 121b), meaning that what for others constitutes a minor infraction for someone righteous is a big sin. Additionally, once God sends a punishment to a group (city, country, nation), that punishment applies to everyone whether righteous or wicked (Bava Kamma 60a). That is part of being a people -- our fates are connected. In fact, the Gemara (Shabbos 55a) says that when God punishes the Jewish people, He starts with the most righteous. 2) Were the people killed in the Holocaust guilty? - Even though no one can claim to be free from guilt, it is hard to imagine that anyone committed a sin so heinous as to deserve the horrors of the Holocaust. However, a sin committed by many is worse than a sin committed by an individual. Additionally, God is patient and allows time -- generations -- for the Jewish people to return before punishing us. When the punishment arrives, it is not just for that generation but for the previous generations as well (Ex. 20:5; Or Ha-Chaim, ad loc.). The generation of the Holocaust lived at the end of God's long wait for a return that never arrived. We do not stand in judgement of those who died or suffered in the Holocaust, nor do we say that they are more deserving than people before or after them. According to this understanding, they were individuals who lived at a time in history when the Jewish people was punished for its collective sins over many generations, for its long drift away from traditional Jewish observance. 3) Were the Nazis right to kill Jews? - This question is natural but odd. Natural because it emerges from the overall approach but odd because it has been discussed for centuries. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Teshuvah 6:5) asks why Pharaoh and the Egyptians were punished for enslaving the Jews when it was part of God's plan as told to Avraham (Gen. 15:13). Rambam answers that someone was destined to enslave the Jews but the Egyptians were guilty for being the ones to do it and therefore suffered ten plagues and drowning at the sea (see also Ramban, Gen. 15:14; I discuss it [59]here). May the Nazis suffer a hundred times ten plagues for their part in the Holocaust. None of this detracts from God's role in punishing the Jewish people through the guilty Egyptian hands. 4) What value is there in looking for other people's sins? - As discussed above, Rav Grodzinski sees value in learning what to fix. If we do not learn the spiritual lessons of history, we are condemned to repeat them. Additionally, Ramban (Sha'ar Ha-Gemul in Kisvei Ha-Ramban, vol. 2 p. 281; I discuss it [60]here) offers four reasons to engage in theodicy, even if ultimately you cannot fully understand God's ways. First, we benefit from gaining a better understanding of God's ways. More wisdom is good. Metaphysical knowledge, understanding God's actions, is always positive. Second, studying the ways in which God rewards and punishes people strengthens our belief. Our continuous exploration of God's ways reinforces within us His existence and His providence. Our greater understanding affords us confidence that explanations exist to even what we do not understand. Additionally, concludes Ramban, the obligations to fear and love God include a requirement to accept His judgment, to explain and justify God's decisions. This is a mitzvah of tziduk ha-din. 4) Is it sacrilegious to try to understand God's justice? - No, it is a mitzvah, as per the previous point. It also is not insulting to speak of punishment due to sins. When the Shakh writes about the Chmelnitzki massacres, he refers to what happened to us "due to our sins." When the Ra'avan writes about the First Crusade ([61]Kuntres Gezeiras Tatn"u), he specifically invokes the tokhecha, saying that they experienced all of the biblical curses. This is a strain of, if not the dominant strain in, traditional Judaism. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Ta'aniyos 1:3) calls it cruelty to fail to look for the sins that led to divine punishment. 5) Can anyone know God's reasons absent prophecy? - Rav Yitzchak Hutner ("Holocaust" -- A Study of the Term, and the Epoch it is Meant to Describe" in [62]Jewish Observer, October 1977, p. 9) writes: "One would have to be a navi or Tanna (a prophet or Talmudic sage) to claim knowledge of the specific reasons for what befell us; anyone on a lesser plane claiming to do so tramples in vain upon the bodies of the kedoshim who died Al Kiddush Hashem [as holy martyrs] and misuses the power to interpret and understand Jewish history." On the other hand, this same Rav Hutner gave an approbation to Rav Wolbe's book quoted above. Furthermore, it seems that Rav Grodzinski, himself a holy martyr, felt his method of analyzing suffering serves the function of prophecy in today's age. 6) Why does this usually ring so hollow? - When the Holocaust is discussed without sensitivity and empathy, the proposed explanations sound shallow and offensive. In my opinion, that is why Rav Wolbe began with a long introduction and invoked the conclusions of a Holocaust victim, Rav Grodzinski. Furthermore, many of the people offering explanations today either are, or sound like or are portrayed by the media as being, self-righteous fools. It is hard to take seriously someone whose analysis is shallow and only validates his regular message. If your answer to everything is female immodesty, you lack credibility to offer a thoughtful and nuanced answer. Rav Grodzinski does not face this challenge but some people may unfairly associate him with others who suffer that problem. There may be other reasons that this approach often rings hollow but these should suffice for our purposes. Personally, I benefited from this tokhecha approach which I intuited as a non-religious teenager. I am not certain which sins caused the Holocaust but I am open to honest, sensitive speculation as a way of learning from history, which I believe is that in which Rav Grodzinski and Rav Wolbe engaged. If this approach had been deemed theologically unacceptable, despite its impeccable pedigree, I don't know if I would be religious today. In my opinion, it is a shame to remove this approach from our theological toolbox due to politics and rhetoric from decades ago. ... 3 comments 1. Kovner Sep 8, 20 at 6:44 am You missed out on one more important approach. Read the classic introduction to Zichron Kodosh written by the author of Nesivos Sholom - RSN Barzovsky zt"l. The sefer was published once, and never reprinted. Also, the Toras Avrohom was published by a son - not sons - of RAG. Only one son did not perish. ... 3. Kovner Sep 9, 20 at 7:05 pm I'm not skilled to do so accurately and faithfully. Never the less, I'll venture to say that the central point is that it's all part of Hashem's Grand Plan of human history, and is beyond our comprehension. And therefore the most appropriate response is "Vayidom Aharon"... ... Copyright 2020 All rights reserved References 51. https://merrimackvalleyhavurah.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/the-face-of-god-thoughts-on-the-holocaust/ 52. http://www.mysatmar.com/docs/shite_hakdoshe/ 53. https://torasavigdor.org/ 54. https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Madness-Avigdor-Millers-Holocaust/dp/B00EF68V9C 55. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Grodzinski 56. https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/54188/harav-yitzchok-grodzinsky-recalls-the-last-moments-of-hagon-rav-elchonon-wasserman-hyd-before-his-murder.html 57. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Wolbe 58. https://www.jdn.co.il/breakingnews/1230669/ 59. https://www.torahmusings.com/2016/05/were-the-egyptians-right/ 60. https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/10/why-theodicy/ 61. https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34838&st=&pgnum=2&hilite= 62. https://agudah.org/the-jewish-observer-vol-12-no-8-october-1977chesvan-5738/ From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Sat Sep 12 10:18:12 2020 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 17:18:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Has anyone seen litereature about the following Issues when Davening BiYehidut (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. (2) If one says the piyut of the Avoda after his private Musaf shmoneh Esrei, can he fall korim, what about Aleinu Shanah Tovah, Beri'ah u-metukah! Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Sep 13 20:36:29 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2020 23:36:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 Message-ID: . asked several questions about Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4, who wrote: > And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the > Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. Spoiler alert: I have several problems with this Aruch Hashulchan, and I suspect that (as R' Wolberg suspects), the AhS had ulterior reasons for writing this (such as the inroads that Reform was making via their translations) and could not have really meant it l'halacha. In any case, there are other poskim who do allow translations. I will begin by giving my own translation of this section of AhS, so that if anyone disagrees with my understanding of what he said, they can bring it to my attention. I will break it into several numbered pieces for easier reference. >>> 1) Know that this [halacha] that Krias Shema and Tefilla may be said in any language - this is certainly when one translates really the entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh into the other language. For otherwise, it would not constitute Shema and Tefilla. 2) According to that, this law does not apply except in the time of the Mishna and Gemara, for they knew our language well, and they were able to translate it. 3) But now, it is well-known that we have a number of uncertainties in explaining the words, and the commentators are divided about it. For example, how do we translate "totafos"? Similarly, the pasuk "Shema Yisrael" has various explanations even of its simple meaning. Likewise in the section about tzitzis, some explain it [the word "tzitzis"] in the sense of "looking" [from the root tzadi yud tzadi], and some explain it as "going" [from yud tzadi aleph]. Same for the word "p'sil" and many [other words] like it. 4) Behold, the essential Name of Havay' - we don't know how to translate it correctly! There are those who translate it as Nitzchi [Eternal], and some translate it as Kol-Yachol [Almighty], and there is no translation at all for "Was and Is and Will Be", which is the real Name Havay', so they equate the translation of the Name Havay' with the Name Elokim. 5) [Here he says something about two very different ways of translating "V'chara af", but I don't understand what he is saying.] 6) And therefore, nowadays it is forbidden to recite Krias Shema or Tefilla or any brachos except in Lashon Hakodesh, and so have the Geonei Olam paskened for about eighty years now, and this is the bottom-line halacha. >>> The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it? He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists? According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty AND Was/Is/WillBe? In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3: 1) It seems in my humble opinion that there is an established halacha by which one can get out of any questionable bracha acharona. For example, one is unsure if he said a bracha acharona or not. Or if he *needs* to make a bracha acharona or not. There is a way to extricate himself from this safek. 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167. 3) If so, one can say "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, boray nefashos etc. ..." If he was obligated in this bracha, then he is yotzay with this. And if he didn't need this bracha, then he has *not* uttered the Name of Heaven in vain, because there is no mention of the Name at all. Look, you can say "Rachamana" a hundred times! 4) Or similar things with other brachos. You should think in your heart that if you need the bracha then it is [being said] for the sake of a bracha; and if not, then it's just talking. 5) I have done this myself several times when drinking hot drinks. The most obvious thing from this section is that the Aruch Hashulchan personally believes that a bracha CAN be said in Aramaic. You might respond that he makes an exception for Aramaic, which is arguably a Lashon Hakodesh. But look again at the AhS's requirements for an adequate translation of Hashem's Name - which is an absolute necessity when saying a bracha - and I don't think "Rachamana" conveys any sense of "Was and Is and Will Be". Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude someone from a partial translation. For example, one could translate most of the words, and leave the difficult words untranslated, which is almost exactly how ArtScroll handles the cited case of "totafos": "Bind them as a sign upon your arm and let them be tefillin between your eyes." If I'm understanding Siman 62 correctly, the AhS wants translation to be all-or-nothing, and since all is not possible, he feels justified in banning all translations. But in Siman 202, a partial translation is exactly what he is doing, by translating the initial words of the bracha, and then continuing with the regular Hebrew text. By the way, it seems that Rav Moshe Feinstein agrees that a translation must be all-or-nothing. See Igros Moshe OC 4:40:27, which is two paragraphs. In the first paragraph, he rejects the AhS's suggestion of using Brich Rachamana to get out of problems, precisely because you can't mix languages in that manner. (It's not at all clear to me why we're not allowed to mix languages, but it is very clear that Rav Moshe rejects it.) In the second paragraph he explains that even if one would say the entire bracha in Aramaic, that too would not resolve a safek bracha problem, because whereas the AhS had no compunctions against saying Rachamana a hundred times, *we* are noheg to avoid saying the Name in vain even when translated. As an aside, there are several teshuvos in which Rav Moshe explains his views on how to translate Hashem's Name for brachos in other languages. See for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:272, where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana, "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ... And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe, whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include concepts like "Was and Is and Will Be". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Sep 14 05:43:25 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:43:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. What is the minimum amount of shofar blowing that one is required to hear? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. In three different places the Torah commands us to blow shofar in the month of Tishrei: Twice in relation to Rosh Hashanah, and once in reference to Yom Kippur (Yovel ? Jubilee). The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 34a) connects the three verses and derives that each time the shofar is blown, it must be blown three times. The Gemara also proves that every blowing of the shofar actually consists of three parts: A Tekiah (a long blow), followed by a Teruah (a broken blow), followed by a Tekiah. This makes for a total of nine blows. The mitzvah is to blow the shofar nine times following this pattern. Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah However, because the Gemara records a disagreement as to the sound of the Teruah, we blow three variations. This amounts to 30 blows. 3X ? Tekiah ? Shevarim Teruah ? Tekiah=(12) 3X ? Tekiah ? Shevarim? Tekiah=(9) 3X ? Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah=(9) This is the minimum amount of shofar blows that one should hear to fulfill their obligation. If even this is too much, at the very least one should make sure to hear at least ten blasts. (See Mishnah Berurah 586:22 & 600:7). Tekiah ? Shevarim Teruah ? Tekiah=(4) Tekiah ? Shevarim ? Tekiah=(3) Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah=(3) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 18:29:14 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 21:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur Message-ID: . R' Aryeh Frimer asked: > Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when > Davening BiYehidut > (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but > perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la > Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head: Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice. Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 06:38:38 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:38:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Q. Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 565:5) writes that the "Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim" > (thirteen attributes of mercy, Shemos 34:6-7) may not be recited unless there is a > minyan. When these pesukim are recited in the context of prayer, they have the > elevated status of a "davar she'bikedusha," like Kaddish or Kedusha, that may only > be said in the presence of a minyan. I actually traced this back to its source - a new obsession of mine. It's a Tur in 565 (Hil. Ta'anis). "Rav Nosson writes there's no Minhag for an individual to say the 13 attributes." (Excuse the stilted word-for-word translation). The Tur then seems to make it clear that he's quoting this to ensure people don't find this Rav Nosson and pasken like it: "I don't know what the problem is since it's like saying Psukim, since the Chachamim only say (not to say w/o a Minyan) a Dovor Shebikdusha like Kaddish, Kedusha and Borchu" (Who is this Rav Nosson? The only Rishon I could find by this name was the Oruch.) The Darkei Moshe injects (on Rav Nosson's statement) saying "our Minhag is (for individuals) to say it, but not during the Shmoneh Esre. The Mahr"iv quoting the O"Z says individuals should not say Selichos." (I.e. they used to say Selichos on Ta'anis during Chazoras haShatz. Actually, we Yekkes still do.) See it online at https://www.sefaria.org.il/Tur%2C_Orach_Chaim.565.1?with=Darchei%20Moshe - for those who can see the Hebrew: , ???? ???? ?????:??:? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?"? ???? [?] ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???: [?] ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????"? ??? ?"? ???? ????? ???? ?????? So the Tur and the Darkei Moshe both agree that an individual can say the "Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim". The dissenting opinion says to skip Selichos altogether. >From there it's all downhill. The common denominator being that all Nosie Keilim seem to pasken like Rav Nosson and try to find workarounds. I find this fascinating. I wonder if the Tur now regrets ever mentioning this opinion. :-) Note that this is all mentioned in Hil. Ta'anis. In 581 where they discuss Selichot during Elul, they ignore this topic completely. KVT - Danny From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Sep 16 10:42:32 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:42:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] practical and detailed shir for Baalei tokaya and makri Message-ID: <089901d68c50$c22d7680$46886380$@touchlogic.com> Very good. Starts basic, but gets better.. >From Rabbi Mordechai Scheiner, rosh Kollel Ohr Yosef - toronto https://zoom.us/rec/share/xyvl_GE2lRo5GmE02A0XVqL4TEp3Kq4RqYfPZ4zAbezsR4D1c7G8LaIToB8dxYbe.0vgzJDhv9dDlViCP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 13:40:15 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:40:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <2110840790.2504917.1600178620157@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20200914185208.GC25700@aishdas.org> <2110840790.2504917.1600178620157@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20200917204015.GA749@aishdas.org> Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT: > Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim > we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is > problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out sifrei > Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos given to > 12 year olds, etc... > This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked how > we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to celebrate a > siyum that itself is iffy. > But when I wrote that, few of us really thought that Israel would be > closing down for the chagim, and that ever minute of shul in nearly all > of chu"l is increasing medical risk. So now we're talking about invoking > heteirim to party at the peril of the medically fragile in the community. > I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the > bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this year's > leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a Simchas > Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can anyone argue > for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that psychological need for > the majority of people? On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 2:03pm GMT, R Harry Maryles replied on Areivim: > It's true that most Shuls had a pretty big gap in their weekly Kriyas > HaTorah and that many Parshios were missed. But some Shuls hae made them > up. In a few cases no Parshios were missed. For example in my son's > neighborhood of Ramat bet Shemesh which is over 90% observant, my son > did KhT every Shabbos from his balcony with a Minyan made of of all of > his neighbors within earshot. (Don't know how he arrived at calling this > Teffilah B'Tzibur, but that was his Beshas Ha'dechak Psak.) > IIUC, Doing Hakafos on ST is a Minahg of the Tzibur, not the Yachid. > It is based on what the Klal as a whole does. The celebration of > completing yearly cycle with Hakafos is therefore appropriate this year > just like every year. But only along the lines I suggested because of > the pandemic. There are cases where every parashah was leined beause the members of the minyan can't disband anyway -- like in a nursing home or on an army base. But I fear you presented a false dichotomy. Yes, leining and therefore the siyum on leining we celebrate on ST are about the tzibur. But I wouldn't assume that means the global tzibur. After all, there was even a time when annual leining wasn't a universal norm. I had presented a third option, because I had assumed a neighorhood tzibbur. With all the modern complications now that most communities have shenei batei din ba'ir, as we put it WRT the tzibbur accepting Shabbos. But whether your town, your shul, or something else, that I didn't have a position on. So as I saw it, if no minyan in town leined the whole seifer Torah betzibbur, how is that community making a siyum? Shouldn't the shul making the party include at least person completing the text being mesayeim? In any case, there are at least those three possibilities, and we only agree on ruling out the first one, the yachid. But my point on Areivim, just like the point I made here to begin with, was more about most of the minhagim for celebrating Simchas Torah are on the defensive. We lein at night. (At least most of us do.) We take out more sifrei Torah than we read from. We give way too many people aliyos. We are relying on heteirim on a slew of dinim about kavod ST and qeri'as haTorah. We need a certain level of justification for it. We don't have to just say that ST celebrates someone else's completion of the Torah -- we need to be able to argue that's true strongly enough to justify those heteirim. Or, that we need ST for our mental health strongly enough to qualify as justification. Which is an approach I am more sympathetic to than saying I am dancing in my shul with a seifer Torah to celebrate the men of Nachal Yehudah (eg) and in the senior living facilities a couple of miles outside our eiruv at Daughter of Miryam completing a cycle of leining. Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries http://www.aishdas.org/asp are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 18 05:05:52 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:05:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Is one permitted to fast on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. One is not permitted to fast on Rosh Hashanah because Rosh Hashanah is a Yom Tov. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (OC 597:1) rules that one must eat, drink and rejoice on Rosh Hashanah. Nonetheless, unlike other Yomim Tovim, one should not overindulge, lest the solemn nature of the day will be obscured. However, there were Rishonim who held that it is permissible to fast during the daytime because Rosh Hashanah is a day of teshuva. Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l said that his great-grandfather, the Beis HaLevi, would fast both days. In fact, there were those who would fast even on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah because they considered the importance of teshuva on this day to be on the level of pikuach nefesh (life threatening), which overrides the requirement to eat a Shabbos seuda. Although in practice we follow the Shulchan Aruch and do not fast on Rosh Hashanah, the Mishnah Berurah (584:5) makes a distinction between Rosh Hashanah which falls on Shabbos, and Rosh Hashanah which falls on a weekday, as follows: When Rosh Hashanah falls on a weekday, we are permitted to extend the davening into the afternoon, while if Rosh Hashanah is on Shabbos, we are required to finish davening before chatzos (halachic midday) so as not to fast past the morning. As such, if one expects their shul to finish davening on Shabbos after chatzos, it is best to drink a tea or coffee in the morning before going to shul, to avoid fasting inappropriately on Shabbos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 18 05:17:03 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:17:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Laws & Customs: Month of Tishrei during the Corona period Message-ID: For those in quarantine, davening by themselves or in outside Minyanim Please see https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/groupsioattachments/14569/76906693/102/0?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJECNKOVMCCU3ATNQ&Expires=1600431735&Signature=d1788QfnWQyWHF1xjnl7Zn59EJg%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3D%22Tishrei+During+Corona.pdf%22 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Mon Sep 21 05:50:14 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 13:50:14 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? Message-ID: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT: > Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim > we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is > problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out > sifrei Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos > given to > 12 year olds, etc... BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So while it might be that the Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah out). Note that that also means that the siyum for the year, even in a normal year, is not complete (or about to be completed) when the sifrei Torah are taken out at night, as the first hakafos take place (at latest) on the night of Simchat Torah, and yet the finishing of the yearly reading only occurs the next day. Note the reason why I say at latest is because many Sephardim (although not all) have the custom of doing seven sets of seven hakafot which mean they do hakafot on Shmini Atzeret as well (three sets on Shmini Atzeret, to correspond with the three services, three sets on Simchat Torah, to correspond with the three services, and one after Simchat Torah). > This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked > how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to > celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy. There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah, something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah. Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations and to call to others to make a feast. *And further it is the custom* in our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every place according to its custom. *And further we are accustomed* to circle with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with the lulav *and all is because of joy* *Further we are accustomed* to call all the lads to the sefer Torah, ... and in every place according to their custom. *Further we are accustomed* to finish the Torah even with a child oleh..." That is, while you appear to be saying that *because* we make a siyum on the Torah *therefore* we do all these other halachically iffy customs, even the Rema does not say this. To the extent he gives a reason, it is "because of joy", and all the customs are as a result of *that* category. Which makes sense, because making a siyum justifies a seudah being considered a seudas mitzvah (and may justify the name of Simchas Torah, instead of second day Shmini Atzeret), and there are references in the gemara that seem to justify the making of a feast for a siyum, although the derivation is not really that straightforward, nowhere does it allow any of the other behaviour that might be Halachically iffy. On the other hand, simcha is a mitzvah d'orisa on yom tov, and indeed according to Sukkah 48a " It was taught in a braita: [Devarim 16:16] "and it will be completely joyous" this is to include the night of the last day of Yom Tov [lelei yom tov acharon]" Now of course, that is referring in the Torah to Shmini Artzeret, and it is interesting that in chutz l'aretz, we seem to have taken the especially joyous obligation of that d'orisa mitzvah, and attached it to what is the night of yom tov achron for us, which in fact is only minhag avosaynu b'yadanu. But be that as it may, it seems to me that, as the Rema says, the justification for all of these minhagim is simchas yom tov, and particularly the extra simcha of the final days of yom tov, and that they are independent of one another, so that the aspects related to making a siyum on the Torah are independent of taking the sifrei Torah out, and of doing the hakafos, and of singing and dancing. And if anything, the minhag of having a siyum on completing a full yearly reading of the Torah could perhaps be seen as being caused by the obligation to create extra joy on Shmini Atzeret/Simchas Torah, and not the other way around. We have arranged our schedules so that we have the joy of completely the Torah on this day, as Torah learning is in and of itself a form of joy (see eg the introduction to the Eglei Tal), so we arrange them to coincide. > I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the > bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this > year's leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a > Simchas Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can > anyone argue for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that > psychological need for the majority of people? But again, this assumes that all the minhagim on Simchas Torah are a direct result of the siyum, which I do not believe is the case. It is important to have Simchas Yom Tov, and to do what we can to maximise simchas Yom Tov, and if the siyum part is not possible, but the other parts are, then the other parts should be done. <> And the classic justification for these heterim is that the aseh of simcha is docheh, as per the Rema. However, because we are taking about simcha that is required by the Torah, it is linked to and part and parcel with simcha with the Torah - without the Torah there would be no obligation of such simcha, so simcha that is antithetical to the Torah, ie does not encompass kavod haTorah, is not justified. Which is why I am not even convinced that it is a tzibbur versus yachid thing. Would there be a problem if a Rav, who happened to live above the shul, took out the sefrei Torah and did hakafos with them with his family around an empty shul, because he was restricted by Covid requirements to his bubble, which did not contain a minyan? I'm not sure there would. There are potential issues with leining, and even more so with making birchas haTorah on such layning, but do we consider hakafos as a dvar shebekedusha that absolutely has to have a minyan? It is post gemara, so it is not so clear it can be a dvar shebekedusha, which might need to have been instituted by the Anshei Knesset Hagadola or at least not to be post Ravina and Rav Ashi (that might also turn on whether you follow the Aruch haShulchan and the Rokach, who hold that kaddish was instituted by the Anshei Knesset HaGadola, and that is what justifies its status as a dvar shebekedusha, or whether you follow the Shibbolei Ha-Leket and the teshuvas HaGeonim which seem to suggest that the whole institution of kaddish within prayer was instituted by the Geonim (and if so, whether a takana of the Geonim is and remains binding or it does not)). <> But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as something of an obligation of the tzibbur (the tzibbur would seem to be needed in order to make sure that we are making the widow happy). So to the extent that it is dependent upon simcha, then that obligation remains, even if the minhagim of the tzibbur, ie the way the tzibbur traditionally performs such simcha, might not be possible at the present time, and hence is not an obligation. -Micha Gmar Tov Chana From doniels at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 03:16:13 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:16:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur Message-ID: . R' Aryeh Frimer asked: > Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when > Davening BiYehidut > (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but > perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la > Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. R' Akiva Miller answered: > No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head: > Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it > certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice. > Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is > mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there. In a nutshell, you can see it here on Sefaria: https://tinyurl.com/y2qgtuyx It's a Mishna in Nedirim 3:1, discussed in Talmud 23a, codified in Yoreh De'a 211 to which the Ba'er Heitev decides that as long as one said it loud enough to be heard to one's own ears, it's valid. None of the commentators along the way mention publicity. The only issue they have is "Devorim She'B'Leiv" if it's whispered or thought. Along the way I learnt: You can say it ("just kidding about the Neder stuff") any time. Those who hold you don't have to say it right before making the Neder, don't give it an expiration date - IOW once a lifetime should be sufficient. Bottom line: If it works, you can chant the "futuristic" Kol Nidrei to yourself in an undertone. CLOR. Gmar Chasima Tova - Danny, not a Rabbi by any stretch of imagination. From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Sep 17 08:56:27 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:56:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Consumer Daf HaKashrus - Spices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I normally do not send out messages with attachments, but I could not locate this online. [See for attached PDF. -micha] From the pdf file > This article is an in-depth look at a specific category of vegetables: > spices. Spices refer to aromatic vegetable products used to season or > flavor foods. Less than 2% of food consumed in the United States are > spices, but what a difference that 2% makes! Without spices, all food > would be bland and unappetizing. > As mentioned, there are many spices exported by Israel, which create a > whole host of potential kashrus issues. All uncertified Israeli spices > present serious kashrus challenges in the form of tevel and shemitah. A > Mashgiach visiting a spice plant must be on the lookout for this. Because > of the aromatic and fragrant nature of spices, these spices will not > be batel in a mixture, as they are avida l'taama, added to mixtures > for taste, and anything which is added to a mixture for taste does not > become batel. This halachah is paskened by Rema in Yoreh Deah 98:8, > from the Gemara (Beitza 38b, Chulin 6a). See the attachment for much more. From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Sep 22 05:50:20 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:50:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Cheerios and Pas Yisroel Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Can one eat Cheerios during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva (ten days from Rosh Hashana to Yom Kippur) or Shabbos and Yom Tov for those who only eat Pas Yisroel on those days? What about other breakfast cereals? Must they be Pas Yisroel? A. There are differing opinions as to whether Cheerios is considered pas. The OU poskim do not consider it pas, because of the size of the individual pieces and the manner in which it is made. Likewise, wheat flake cereals are not considered ?bread-like? and therefore do not need to be pas Yisroel. Corn and Rice Cereals are, by definition, not bread items. See our Pas Yisroel List ? 5781 at OUKosher.org for OU certified Pas Yisroel brands and products. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 14:09:36 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200922210936.GD19252@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 11:36:29PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was > supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated > prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in > the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it? The SA often just echoes Chazal when the case is considered theoretical. So, if he didn't see people really trying to say Shema in la'az, the Mechaber wouldn't deal with the practical problems of trying to do so and just note that hypothetically, Chazal said it was mutar. > He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators > lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are > incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text > holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to > adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists? Or maybe just the right shade for each instance. If you get too nitpicky, you'll note that two different speakers of the same language have different memories and associations with many of their different words, and don't have bidiyuq the same things in mind when using them. Exact precision is a rabbit's hole to fall down. The question is defining "exact enough". Maybe exact enough to relay one out of multiple peshatim? WRT semitic languages, there are going to be much closer matches. So, davening in Aramaic seems much more doable than davening in a Romantic or Germanic language. > According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the > Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word > "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those > languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's > satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty > AND Was/Is/WillBe? Or maybe Moshe translated to a phrase. Or maybe, because Moshe knew which connotation of the sheim was primary in each context, he was able to pick the right translation for each. > In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my > translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3: ... > 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana, > Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe > (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written > in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167. But he pointedly does NOT say that it's a good idea even if it's not a a safeiq. So it would seem translations are only good enough when there is no better way to deal with the situation. You're comparing what he says here lekhat-chilah with his solution for a bedi'eved. BTW, I think berikh Rachmana is about fulfilling the purpose of the berachah without trying to fulfill Chazal's coinage. Like if we said you would be be meqabel ol Malkhus Shamayim by saying Shema in English, but not yotzei the actual mitzvah of Q"Sh. Because there is no "atah", and "of this bread" isn't "Who Brings bread out of the earth". It's not even a close paraphrase, never mind translation. It's not even an exactness of translation issue. Like, what if a native Hebrew speaker followed AhS OC 202 by saying "Barukh haRachaman Adon Melekh haOlam vehalachmaniah hazot". He would also avoid the risk of berakhaha levatalah and also that of the geneivah-like behavior of eating without a berakhah. > Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the > entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did > he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude > someone from a partial translation.... Why? Maybe someone would think "If I get a perfect enough translation just until 'al levavekha' or just the first pereq, at least he would be yotzei deOraisa." And SE is a different kind of problem than Shema, since its core is baqashos, not miqra. > for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:[1]72, > where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have > assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana, > "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and > established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common > among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ... > And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe, > whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include > concepts like "Was and Is and Will Be". BUT... only for some of the dinim of Sheimos. Not translations of tefillos. As you started your discussion of RMF -- he agrees with the AhS that such translations don't exist. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, http://www.aishdas.org/asp others come to love him very naturally, and Author: Widen Your Tent he does not need even a speck of flattery. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 14:23:23 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:23:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:50:14PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot > HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So while it might be that the > Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to > come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein > and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think > it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah > out).... I was taught the same line of reasoning besheim haGra. (I emailed RSMandel to double-check if it was from him, and did he have the mar'eh maqom. Got impatient holding off this reply for an answer.) >> This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked >> how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to >> celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy. > There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah, > something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and > Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be > related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the > way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah. > Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman > 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs: > > "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and > make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are > accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations > and to call to others to make a feast. *And further it is the custom* in > our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the > sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every > place according to its custom. *And further we are accustomed* to circle > with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with > the lulav *and all is because of joy*..." The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah shel torah* venohagim...") And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah". And since the Rama told you the simchah in question is that of the siyum, I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum, and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a community that year. >> Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either >> way. > But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as > something of an obligation of the tzibbur... Yes, but we don't take the sifrei Torah out at night for any other yom tov. It's not "just" simchas YT. So the question is whether I can invoke sharing in *his* simchah over finishing the Torah to participate. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search http://www.aishdas.org/asp of a spiritual experience. You are a Author: Widen Your Tent spiritual being immersed in a human - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Sep 22 16:57:21 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:57:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] forms of teshuvah Message-ID: From R' Gil Student: Medieval Ashkenazic authorities prescribed a variety of strong acts of self-induced suffering as part of the teshuvah process, including long-term fasting, lashes, exile and more. Rabbeinu Peretz (Gloss to Semak, no. 53) lists four kinds of teshuvah: 1) teshuvas charatah, in which you regret the sin; 2) teshuvas ha-geder, in which you set additional boundaries for yourself to avoid sinning in the future; 3) teshuvas ha-kasuv, in which you undergo the punishment listed in the Torah for your sin; 4) teshuvas ha-mishkal, in which you inflict yourself with pain corresponding to the amount of pleasure you enjoyed with your sin. Of these four, the first is what we consider standard teshuvah and the second is going above and beyond. The third and fourth are not - and should not be - practiced today. The Vilna Gaon's brother (Ma'alos Ha-Torah, introduction) makes clear that we cannot undergo these harsh forms of teshuvah in our time (his time, even more so in our time) and emerge physically and religiously healthy. Instead, he recommends intense Torah study. Me- what is the nature of the paradigm change claimed by the Ma'alos Ha-Torah? Gct 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 Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Tue Sep 22 15:25:17 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:25:17 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: <> Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is: ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the Torah" That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is because of the custom of making of completing the Torah. So maybe you should argue that *this* year Simchas Torah should not be called Simchas Torah, but Shmini Atzeres sheni! He does not say, as you have said "the simcha is that of completing the Torah*. << And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah".>> Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag. Most of the prohibitions however (such as not taking the sifrei Torah out for no reason, reading over and over, calling up ketanim) are because of kavod haTorah, ie kavod haTorah is the counterweight reason *not* to do these minhagim. However similar to the idea of oseh docheh lo ta'aseh, the mitzvah of simcha is able push aside certain kevod haTorah restrictions in certain circumstances, but clearly not in ones that are in fact a disgrace to the Torah, but only ones that enhance the simcha of the Torah. There is no reason for a siyum to push aside prohibitions relating to kavod haTorah. <> But he didn't he told you that is why the day has that name, not that the simcha in question is the siyum. All the different minhagim, including, but not limited to, having the siyum, are because of simcha. << I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum, and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a community that year.>> Then he need not have listed them as "v'od nehagu" etc <> But the gemora learns the simcha for yom tov acharon shel chag out of a separate pasuk to the psukim that we learn it for Sukkos. Why would Shmini Atzeres need its only special pasuk with its own special limud, why does the Torah not combine it with the simcha learnt out for sukkos? The mishna understands that one is obligated in the same way just like the seven days of sukkos so why are they not combined in the Torah? The logical answer is because there is something somewhat different about the nature of this simcha (and in fact one might be tempted to darshen the ach, not as the gemora does to exclude the first night of sukkos, but to say that it is a day of simcha only, not simcha and sukkah and arba minim, but only simcha). The custom, and the Rema makes it very clear that it is a custom, of making the siyum is very late, given that we know that a three year cycle was in existence for many years, and yet the descriptions of what was going on on Simchas Torah well predate the universality of the one year cycle (descriptions amongst the Geonim, inter alia). The fundamental mitzvah on Shmini Atzeres/Simchas Torah is therefore ach sameach! The interesting question is why in chutz l'aretz, other than amongst those Sefardim who start the hakafot on Shmini Artzeres, we do *not* take the sifrei Torah out on Shmini Atzeres. However, to the extent that one is sitting in the sukkah on Shmini Artzeret, and it is still thereby linked to sukkos, then maybe it makes sense that in chutz l'aretz, the day that is ach sameach, with no link to what went before, is Simchas Torah, despite it only being yom tov sheini shel golios. <> But only if you assume the linkage that, against the explicit language of the Rema, the cause of all the other minhagim is the siyum, including where they are otherwise in violation of kevod haTorah, rather than that the special simcha due to the special pasuk is the cause of all the minhagim including the siyum. GCT! -Micha Regards Chana From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 03:12:16 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 06:12:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? Message-ID: . Several posters referenced the Rama, which R"n Chana Luntz translated as: > The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they > rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of > the Torah Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to our private learning of the parshios, such as those who learned the parsha each week by reading it themselves from a chumash while the shuls were closed? Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv, but by taking the time and effort to actually mouth every single word myself (rather than just listen to the kriah and let my mind dwell on this pasuk and that pasuk), I feel that my learning of Chumash this year was considerably better than in years past, and I'll have no problem celebrating that, to whatever extent our rav allows. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 23 05:51:56 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 12:51:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Medicine on Yom Kippur Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May a person who is ill, but is not in mortal danger (choleh she?ein bo sakana) consume unsweetened medicine on Yom Kippur? A. This is the subject of a dispute between the Acharonim. According to Shaagas Aryeh (75-76), one is not permitted to take medicine on Yom Kippur. Even though medicine is not a ?food?, and the prohibition to consume medicine is Rabbinic in nature ? which is normally waived for people who are ill, nonetheless, by swallowing the pill , the individual demonstrates that he or she considers it as food, and it is therefore forbidden on Yom Kippur. K?sav Sofer (OC 111) strongly disagrees and maintains that consuming medicine when ill does not demonstrate that it is a food item, and therefore medicine may be swallowed on Yom Kippur. Igros Moshe (OC 111:91) concurs with this ruling as well. If a person must drink water to swallow a pill, contemporary poskim recommend adding a bitter substance to water, such as a significant amount of lemon juice or vinegar, so that the water has a very unpleasant taste. This was the opinion of Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul, (Ohr L?Tziyon, IV 15:8), Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (Ashrei Ha?Ish III 23:230) and Rav Nissim Karelitz (Chut HaShani, Yom Kippur p. 145). If the pill is sweet, it is considered to be a food independently of its medicinal properties. In such instances, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach advised that the pill should be wrapped in a tissue and swallowed in that manner (Shemira Shabbos KeHilchasa 39:8; Halichos Shlomo, Yom HaKippurim 5:8). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 11:23:34 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 14:23:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200923182334.GA22665@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:25:17PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing >> the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah >> shel torah* venohagim...") > Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is: ... > Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah > because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the > Torah" > That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is > because of the custom of making of completing the Torah.... Because "shesimeichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh legamrah shel Torah". The simchah and making the mishteh are for the completion of the Torah. And thus the name of the holiday reflects that simchah. ... > Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha > on yom tov acharon shel chag. But the Rama doesn't say simchas YT, just "mishum simchah". OTOH, as we saw, the Rama opens by speaking of the simchah and mishteh of completing the Torah. So, if he just says "simchah" afterwards, why would I think it is anything but the "semeichin ... legamra shel Torah" already brought into the discussion? You're assuming the Rama changes topics without telling us. (Of course, I didn't think any of this out before my first post. I just read the sources, not thinking about other possibilities until it became a discussion. But I can't say that you convinced me yet that I brought too many unconscious assumptions to the table, that your read is comparably viable.) On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 06:12:16AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public > laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to > our private learning of the parshios... It refers to the completion that occured that morning, which was indeed leining. The AhS ad loc says the party is traditionally paid for with pledges by the Chasanim. Not, as I see done today, that the qiddush the next two Shabbosos are. > Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv... A siyum is a siyum. People make a siyum on a mesechtes gemara that they had no particular chiyuv to learn over learning something else. I just don't think we were mesaymim what the minhagim were established to celebrate. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. http://www.aishdas.org/asp If you want time, you must make it. Author: Widen Your Tent - Charles Buxton - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Wed Sep 23 15:37:44 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 23:37:44 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: > Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have > simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag. And RMB replied: <> I suppose the reason it seems to me obvious that mishum simcha, means the simcha of Yom Tov, is because: a) when the poskim say something is meshum simcha in the context of yom tov, they mean the mitzvah of simcha - for example: the Levush and the Bach (and numerous others, I believe) hold that the hakafos of the lulav during sukkos is mishum simcha (or at least the hakafos in the Beis HaMikdash, come directly out of the pasuk mandating simcha, and we then do them as a zecher. In that context, various rishonim and achronim discuss whether an avel is permitted to do hakafos, ie whether the simcha of the day pushes of the fact that a avel is forbidden from simcha. And in all these discussions, when they talk about simcha or mishum simcha, simchas Yom Tov is understood. b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas Torah. But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion would need to be had. c) On the other hand, the obligation to have a seudas mitzvah on finishing learning comes from a statement in gemora shabbas (118b-119a) where Abaye says: he should be rewarded because whenever he heard about a tzurba d'rabanan finishing a mesechta, he would make a yom tov for the Rabbis, which is understood to mean a seudas mitzvah. This is listed as part of a whole list of various Amoraim stating what it is that they believe they should get a special reward for, including being careful in known mitzvos (such a tefillin and tzitzis, and three meals on shabbas) and what are identified as good minhagim (such as not going daled amos with his head uncovered). It is really not clear into which category Abaye's statement falls. And while the Rema in Yore Deah siman 246, si'if 26 does say that " when one finishes a mesechet it is a mitzvah to rejoice and to make a feast, and it is called a seudas mitzvah" - to hang everything we do on Simchas Torah on this one statement in the gemora seems like a breathtaking chiddush. And think about it this way. If I were to finish a mesechta, here today, does that mean I can take the sifrei Torah out of the aron, dance around with them, call up some children (and some people together at once, making the brachos at once), read multiple times, take the sifrei Torah out into the street, (and, if it was shabbas, dance even if in general I held that dancing on shabbas is not permitted, as per the Shulchan Aruch?). Given that the essential siyum that is described in the gemora and referred to by the Rema is on a mesechet in Shas, then all this should be permissible on any day of the week, not just Simchas Torah. Because mai nafka minah. So I suppose it seems to me obvious that all the heterim the Rema refers to cannot be because of the simcha of the siyum, especially as the heterim were in place before the siyum was necessarily happening, historically, which again seems to suggest that the one does not cause the other. I do see that in fact the Aruch HaShulchan seems to support you, as in Orech Chaim siman 669 si'if 2 he says in the middle of the piece: "And also we are accustomed that two are called up together and bless, and even though it is not correct in any event because of the joy of the siyum they do so ." - whereas I would have thought he should say the joy of Yom Tov. So the Aruch HaShulchan would seem to be supporting your position. But still, I cannot see, if the Aruch HaShulchan is saying this, how he can be correct, because the consequences must surely be that any time there is a siyum, such a heter would then be permissible, or at least tolerable. I just can't see how this is right. I cannot see how, even if the whole of klal yisrael this year decided that we were going to have a siyum on kriyas hatorah when we had had a full year since last lockdown (ie assuming a vaccine became widely available and was effective), somewhere in the middle of the year, it would it be mutar as part of holding that siyum on krias haTorah on an ordinary Shabbat, to have the usual Simchas Torah heterim. According to you it would be, but I cannot see that this can be right, and I struggle to believe the Rema would authorise it were he here today. <> Not really. Given that mishum simcha in the context of a Yom Tov is logically understood to mean simchas yom tov, without the modifier, the Rema is just explaining in greater detail why we do everything we do before. That *includes* holding the completion of the krias hatorah cycle on Simchas Torah. ie we arrange to have the siyum on Simchas Torah, *because* of the nature of Simchas Torah, not that Simchas Torah is the way it is because of the siyum of finishing the reading cycle. -Micha Gmar Tov Chana From zev at sero.name Wed Sep 23 17:48:28 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: On 23/9/20 6:37 pm, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an > avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas > Torah. But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion > would need to be had. Last year, when I was an avel, I was told that for Hoshanos I should not go around at all, and should lend my arba minim to someone else who hasn't got them, and have him go around in my place. (Or at least that's how I understood it; it may be that lending the arba minim was simply a suggestion to do someone a chesed, since I wasn't using them.) For Simchas Torah I was told that I could go around with the group, but should not hold a sefer torah while doing so; after the hakafa I could take a sefer and dance with it. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781 zev at sero.name "May this year and its curses end May a new year and its blessings begin" From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 25 05:07:22 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 12:07:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?What_foods_should_one_eat_at_the_seuda_?= =?windows-1252?q?ha=92mafsekes_=28last_meal=29_on_erev_Yom_Kippur=3F?= Message-ID: Please see https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/foods-one-eat-seuda-hamafsekes-last-meal-erev-yom-kippur/?category=yom-kippur&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shsh%20Haazinu%205781%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=32573763&spUserID=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&spJobID=1784317155&spReportId=MTc4NDMxNzE1NQS2 What foods should one eat at the seuda ha?mafsekes (last meal) on erev Yom Kippur? | OU Kosher Certification Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 608:4) writes that on erev Yom Kippur, one should eat light foods that are easily digestible, so one will be able to daven on Yom Kippur with proper concentration. There is a common custom to dip challah in honey. Mishnah... oukosher.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emteitz at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 13:32:06 2020 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 16:32:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What will be with Simchas Torah Message-ID: The comment was made, "Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to our private learning of the parshios, such as those who learned the parsha each week by reading it themselves from a chumash while the shuls were closed? Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv, . . ." It isn't? See OC 385:1. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Sep 29 05:08:16 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:08:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is an Esrog Muktza on Shabbos Message-ID: >From today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. This year, the first day of Sukkos is Shabbos, and there is no mitzvah of lulav and esrog. Can I show my neighbor my beautiful esrog, or is it muktza? Q. Shulchan Aruch (OC 658:2) writes that a lulav is muktzah on Shabbos. Since there is no mitzvah of lulav and esrog on Shabbos, a lulav serves no purpose, and it is mukztah like other tree branches. However, an esrog may be moved, since it has a function; one may smell the fruit. (There is a dispute if the beracha on fragrances is recited when smelling an esrog on Sukkos, since the primary function of an esrog on Sukkos is for the mitzvah of lulav and esrog and not for fragrance. To avoid the uncertainty of reciting a beracha, the Shulchan Aruch recommends not smelling an esrog on Sukkos. Nonetheless the Mishnah Berurah (658:5) writes there is no restriction to smell an esrog on Shabbos and recite a beracha, because there is no mitzvah on that day.) Since, it has a function, it is not muktza, and it may be moved for any purpose. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt?l (Shmiras Shabbos K?Hilchaso 22: note 62) writes that today, since people are protective of their esrogim and will not pass them around to be smelled, they are categorized as ?muktza machmas chisaron kis? (expensive or delicate items that are generally stored in a safe location), which may not be moved for any reason on Shabbos. The Aruch Hashulchan (OC 308:17) appears to rule this way as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 03:05:03 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 06:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: . I have long been bothered by why we cannot start or stop Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/geshem without a formal announcement , yet no announcements at all are required for starting and stopping any of the other changes to our tefilos. This past spring, in Avodah 38:24, I quoted a teshuva from Rav Hershel Schachter, where he tackled this question. (It is titled "Piskei Corona #9: Hallel on Pesach Night and Tefillas Tal". "Our Rav" refers to Rav JB Soloveitchik z"l; the parentheses are Rav Schachter's.) > There is a big difference between She'eila (V'sen Tal Umatar > Livracha) and Hazkara (Mashiv Haruach). See what I wrote in > the name of our Rav in MiPeninei HaRav (section Tefila, number > 5), that changing the descriptions of Hashem (from Mashiv > Haruach to Morid Hatal) requires Reshus Hatzibur, and an > individual is not allowed to make changes on his own. But I still don't understand what makes Mashiv Haruach so unusual. According to Rav Schachter's logic, shouldn't we also need Reshus Hatzibur to change the description of Hashem between HaKeil HaKadosh and HaMelech HaKadosh? Moreover, why is this Reshus Hatzibur required *every* *single* *time* that we start or stop Mashiv Haruach? Why isn't it sufficient that Chazal ordained that we start it every year on Shmini Atzeres, and stop it every year on Pesach? I once questioned how our Yom Tovim have any d'Oraisa status at all: If there's no Beis Din to declare that a certain day was Rosh Chodesh Tishrei, then where does Yom Kippur's status come from? The answer I got (Eliyahu Kitov, The Book of Our Heritage, v 1 pg 230) was that Hillel's beis din was mekadesh in *advance* all future Roshei Chadashim that would be calculated according to his rules. According to this reasoning, the required Reshus Hatzibur doesn't have to come from the gabbai or the chazan. It comes from Chazal, who ordained this schedule of changes to the Amidah, so when the calendar says to make a change, my requirement to do so comes automatically, whether I'm in shul or not, just like for all the other changes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Sep 30 12:02:34 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:02:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] fear of death Message-ID: Sheldon Solomon is a social psychologist at Skidmore College. He earned his B.A. from Franklin and Marshall College and his doctoral degree from the University of Kansas. He is best known for developing terror management theory, along with Jeff Greenberg and Tom Pyszczynski which is concerned with how humans deal with their own sense of mortality Sheldon Solomon - "I feel like there's a real sense in which doing these studies and writing books and lecturing has been my way of avoiding directly confronting my anxieties by turning it (me - fear of death) into an intellectual exercise" [Me - sounds like it could've been said by R'Chaim] Is this a common approach in orthodox circles Gmar tov 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 llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 30 06:10:27 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:10:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Question for Today's Times Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May one fulfill the mitzvah of picking up their lulav and esrog while wearing gloves? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 651:7) writes that if a person wrapped a cloth around their hand and picked up the lulav, some say one has not fulfilled the mitzvah. This is because the cloth is a chatzitza (barrier) between the hand and the lulav. The Mishnah Berurah (651:33) writes that the same applies if one is wearing gloves. He also explains that the reason Shulchan Aruch writes ?some say?, is because this is a matter of dispute among Rishonim. The opinion of the Ran is that if one wrapped their hands with cloth or put on gloves, the cloth is viewed as an extension of one?s hand, and as such, it is not a barrier. Therefore, if one did pick up the lulav while wearing gloves, the lulav should be lifted again to fulfill the mitzvah in accordance with those who view the glove as a chatziza. However, a new beracha would not be said because the mitzvah was already fulfilled according to the Ran. One who must wear gloves in shul should recite the berachos and shake the lulav at home before coming to shul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Jul 1 05:12:56 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:12:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ben Noach and mitzvas kiddush hashem Message-ID: <043501d64fa0$f4d21a60$de764f20$@touchlogic.com> I believe a few issues ago someone asked if benei noach are obligated in mitzvas kiddush hashem (to be moser nefesh to avoid their 7 mitzvos, as we are obligated wrt murder/arayos/AZ) See toldos Noah at length on this subject. Pg. 247-270 Email offline if you want scans.. Are they commanded in mitzvas kiddush hashem (no - rambam) Are they allowed to be moser nefesh for mitzvas kiddush hashem (machlokes) Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid killing someone (machlokes) Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid abortion. q etc From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 1 09:40:03 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 16:40:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux Message-ID: I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? 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 mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Jul 1 15:31:10 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:31:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status Message-ID: <052501d64ff7$52b1d1b0$f8157510$@touchlogic.com> https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/kosher-appliances/467/shattered-dre ams/ ... What is induction cooking? Induction cooking is a revolutionary energy efficient way of cooking without heat. How do you cook without heat? The answer is with electro-magnetic energy. The conventional burner is replaced with a coil of tightly wound copper wire under the glass cooktop. Turning on the "burner" sends electro-magnetic energy through the coil. If you placed your hand on the coil area, you would feel nothing. If you placed an aluminum pan on the same area you would still feel nothing. However, by placing an iron skillet or a pot with an iron core or magnetized stainless steel on the cooktop, the magnetized skillet completes the magnetic connection and the electro-magnetic field of energy transfers directly into the pan. This causes the iron molecules to move very rapidly, giving off heat. In turn, the cookware cooks the food. Lifting the pan off of the cooktop breaks the magnetic connection, and you will no longer be cooking. The cooktop will be heated by the "magnetic" pot or pan, but it does not get hot from the coil. Consequently, any spill onto the ceramic cooktop surface will be a result of an irui kli rishon, spillage from a hot pot, not a heated cooktop as you would have in conventional cooking. Hence, if one would want to kasher the cooktop, it could be accomplished by a lesser means of kasherization, irui kli rishon.10 Although induction cooking offers a koshering benefit, the cooktop cannot be used on Shabbos or Yom Yov because the cooking connection is made once the pot is put onto the coil area. Similarly, one would not be able to remove the pot from the cooktop on Shabbos or Yom Tov because one would be "disconnecting" the magnetic field by removing the pot. While the ability to kasher an induction cooktop is an advantage, the disadvantage of not being able to use it on Shabbos or Yom Tov makes this cooktop impractical, unless one has more than one cooktop in the kitchen (an induction for during the week, and a non-induction for Shabbos and Yom Tov). As with every new advent of technology, one balabusta's dream is another balabusta's nightmare. From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 03:43:44 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:43:44 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 3:00 PM Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was > forbidden. So at least for Ashkenazim this whole issue should not > exist. Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut. > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for the gezeira seem to apply. Even for Sephardim, since the SA is meikel in seif 4 in the case of servants in a beit yisrael. Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 15:43:22 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:43:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:27:08AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > RMB writes: >> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and that >> the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / minhag she'eino >> chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done. > So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b: > Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, v'Rav > Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: > Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? People practice like REbY. Why? R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example of BY chalaq R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah I presume you would say something like: R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: it'r universal pesaq R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something entirely different? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. Author: Widen Your Tent - Rachel Levin Varnhagen - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From cantorwolberg at cox.net Thu Jul 2 05:57:12 2020 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:57:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Something to Ponder Message-ID: To paraphrase this profound statement below by R? Yitzchok from the Talmud R.H. (16b) which is quite timely: Any year that begins without the straightforward, clear and unequivocal tekiya, will sadly end with the wavering sound of defeat ? the terua. ??"? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 05:12:53 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:12:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: . In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this is the one I want to ask about.) > The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation > of Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana > (danger). Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the > Mishnah, shuls were located outside of the cities where it was > not safe to be alone at night. The Rabbis were concerned that > people who came late to shul might be left alone while finishing > to daven. To give latecomers a chance to catch up and finish > davening with everyone else, Chazal extended the davening by > adding Mei'ein Sheva. I've heard this same explanation many times from many sources, but I've never understood it. Mei'ein Sheva is shorter than a single page in most siddurim - does its presence really lengthen the service significantly? If the shuls were outside the cities, it must have taken a certain amount of time to get home, and even to get to the outskirts of the city. Were the latecomers unable to catch up to their neighbors? Were the on-time people unwilling to stay in shul for the one or two minutes needed for the latecomers to finish? If this problem was sufficiently significant for Chazal to enact this measure, there were probably several latecomers every week, not just a single latecomer now and then. If so, couldn't the latecomers simply wait for each other, even if the on-time people rushed to get home? There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better? Thank you in advance. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 07:14:04 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:14:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200702141404.GB25994@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 01:43:44PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was > > forbidden.... > > exist. Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut. > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and > pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh" > it includes any form of cooking by heat... Or, any form of cooking by fire, whether broiling, roasting or boiling or frying in water or oil that are heated by fire. For an example that predates the taqaah, solar cooking. Does a rishon deal with the question of eating an egg cooked in the sand that was placed there by a non-Jew? And, as I opened in my first response, it's not just the Rama; "al ha'eish" and variants are common in the discussion. I don't think it's an Ashkenazi thing, just because the SA doesn't use the idiom himself. > That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a > Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for > the gezeira seem to apply.... The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for refu'ah beShabbos. Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking via fire. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, http://www.aishdas.org/asp eventually it will rise to the top. Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 2 07:13:40 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:13:40 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> > RMB wrote: >> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and >> that the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / >> minhag she'eino chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done. And I wrote: > So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b: > Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, > v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: > Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? <> Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim. If you were having a shiur about the halacha of meat, it would be remiss of you to mention the one, and not the other. And if you were giving a shiur to both Ashkenazim and Sephardim, I hope you would say - CYLOR [the L of course standing for "local"], rather than saying "we pasken" one way or the other. Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel, you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like. There are other opinions, and they might have been brought, but the end of the shiur would say - follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov, whereas I would hope that would not be what you would say regarding BY chalaq. <> But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>. Glatt is a tricky one, because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin. And the question then comes down to, why is it that someone keeps glatt, is it because he wants to be machmir for those who think it is really following the BY's iqur hadin, or is it because that is what his community does. If he is just doing it because he lives with other Hungarians so does it, but he really thinks the Rema is right, and it is a chumra that the people came up with (which you can argue it is, particularly because glatt is not the same as BY chalak) then it is a minhag garua. But if the community does it because they are really holding like the BY (at least to an extent), despite the Rema, I would say it is a minhag chashuv. I thought the better example of what you were saying is milchigs on Shavuos, which has no Rav psak behind it, but which has Rabbinic approval in the form of the Rema. That shows the distinction between what I thought you were arguing and what I am much more clearly. Ie that according to you minhag chashuv has no Rabbinic psak source, it is something the people came up with, but it is a religious practice that the Rabbis then approved, whereas I am saying that for a minhag chashuv to be a minhag chashuv, there needs to be a rabbinic psak that the people are relying on, even if other communities hold differently. And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, and the community then followed. It is not some religious idea, like milchigs on Shavuos, that the community came up with independently and then was approved. If R' Eliezer or Rabbi Meir had never paskened the way they did, then the minhag would never have arisen. That, I thought, was the fundamental distinction between what I am saying and you are saying. That I was saying to be a minhag chashuv, it has to be originally Rav psak derived, that people then followed. Whereas I understood you as saying that a psak is a psak, and different from a minhag chashuv, which had to be people derived, ie bottom up, albeit with Rav approval post fact. And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag? <> But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good thing. Especially as we discussing what are needed for an eruv (a halachic device), or whether the kohanim should duchan during Mincha and nei'ila of Yom Kippur. These aren't things like going around with baskets on your head, or squeezing fruit. They are religious acts. <> Yes. << R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq>> Yes, although I prefer to phrase it the psak that the people as a community [I prefer that to the term "local" as it sounds limited, while communities can be large or small] have adopted following Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, or Rabbi Meir [out of the options available], making it the minhag chashuv. <> I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in psak. To the point where their psak is not a valid psak. The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. Regarding R' Yochanan I believe I am following Rashi. Both Rashi, Tosfos and the Rosh refer us to Ta'anis 26b where it explains that if it is the halacha, you teach it "b'pirka" - ie you learn it out in the public halachic discussions. If it is minhag, you don't teach it b'pirka, but if someone comes to you and asks, you posken that way, and where it says nahagu - one does not rule this way, just "I avid, avid, v'lo mehadrinan lei". And Rashi in Ta'anis, says: U'man d'amar nahagu [ie Rabbi Yochanan] - mashma: hen nohagu me'alehen, aval aino ikar. Uminhag mashmar - Torat minhag yesh b'davar, uminhag kosher hu. The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher. That rather sounds like either it is a minhag taus [which in Yerushalmi speak is aino minhag, such as not working all motzei shabbas, even though this is clearly a religious practice] or a norm that has halachic impact. But it should not be dignified with the name minhag. However over in Eruvin Rashi (quoted approvingly there by Tosfos and the Rosh) uses the language - aval i avide lo machinan byadayhu - ie if they do it, we don't protest. That sounds much more like the minhagim that the Tosfos and the Rosh were discussing in Pesachim as being minhag lo chasuv (ie tolerated, and not gone against in front of, ie you are not to rule publically in front of them, but you don't actually have to keep), which is contrasted to a minhag chasuv. Tosfos in Brachos 52b (d"h nahagu ha'am) draws a different distinction between the situation over in Ta'anis and in Eruvin (and elsewhere, such as Rosh Hashana) and the situation in Brachos where Rabbi Yochanan again says nahagu ha'am [like Beis Hillel in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda - the subject matter being whether we say the blessing over the spices before or after the blessing over the flame in havdala]. Because we [and I think we all in fact, as Tosfos says] l'chatchila go according to this R' Yochanan that we make the blessing over the spices before the flame, and yet it would seem from Eruvin 62b (as understood by Ta'anis) that l'chatchila one shouldn't follow where it says nahagu ha'am, just that where the people are so accustomed, we don't make them go back if they did it wrong (so in the case of the havdala, one would think one should really bless the flame first, and then the spices, just if people did it the other way around, we wouldn't make them repeat havdala). And Tosfos' answer there in Brochos is that over in Eruvin, the nahagu ha'am is contrasted to someone saying "halacha" which means "halacha l'chatchila u'morin ken" and therefore when somebody else says nahagu they are meaning bideved, "aval hacha yachol l'hios d'ain kan ele nahagu greida". Note however that in the case in Brachos everybody agrees the halacha is like Beis Hillel (versus Beis Shammai). The issue at stake is how to understand Beis Hillel - like Rabbi Yehuda or like Rabbi Meir. And while Rabbi Meir would seem to be the stam mishna, we follow Rabbi Yehuda. That feels to me less "al pi Talmud chacham" - it is more how the relevant Talmud Chacham understood another set of talmudei chachamim. Whereas the case in Eruvin 62b is regarding what R' Eliezer ben Yaa'kov himself held (regarding non-Jews assuring a courtyard for eruv purposes, if there was only one Jew) versus Rabbi Meir, or in Eruvin 72 (do you need a shituf and an eruv), or Ta'anis (whether on Yom Kippur the Kohanim should bless at Mincha and ne'ila) ie is a matter of direct psak versus psak. With the sense that according to Rabbi Yochanan the psak in question is plain wrong, and knowledgeable people should ignore it. I think you could thus alternatively argue that Brachos is a classic minhag garua that happened to accord with how Rabbi Yehuda understood Beis Hillel, which in the absence of a clear psak either way, we follow the order the people decided upon, for their own reasons, whereas in the other cases, it is a minhag taus, that the psak is clearly wrong in halachic terms, but because there is this da'as yachid position out there, the hachamim were not prepared, in bideved situations, to make people go back and redo. Or you can say that actually over in Brachos Rabbi Yochanan, while using the term nahagu ha'am, given that it was not used in contrast to minhag k', meant really to say minhag k' - making it a minhag chashuv. Or maybe in fact we just ignore Rabbi Yochanan's expression. And what we are actually following is the ma'ase shehaya of Rava. In any event, for me the key fact is the Rav Huna defines minhag explicitly as going according to a psak, something you, I believe, said couldn't happen. How you understand Rabbi Yochanan, who specifically does not use the term minhag, just nagu ha'am for something which (leaving aside the situation in Brachos) he disapproves of, is secondary. -Micha Regards Chana From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 07:36:54 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:36:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:13:40PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote: >> Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel: Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, >> v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar: >> Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov? >> <> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example >> of BY chalaq > Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is not > what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim... You totally lost me. Neither Shemu'el's nor R Yehudah's "we" are Askenazim or Separadim. ... > Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we > pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel, > you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben > Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like... We are in agreement. >> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt > But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common religious > practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>... Which is exactly what I have R Huna saying here. The actual halakhah is lenient, the hamon am in practice are nohagim to be stringent like REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the stringency. It's not din, but it's a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval -- a minhag chashuv. > Glatt is a tricky one, because of > the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin... Still, Hungarians are following it as minhag, and are more lenient than the Sepharadi half of the world BECAUSE it is "just" minhag. To them. The issue you raise is a distraction from explaining the gemara. > And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely > and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi > Meir, and the community then followed... > And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as > expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' > Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario, > and yet it has the definition of minhag? After the rabbinate said you didn't have to. So in that sense it is "bottom up". The masses chose to do something extrahalachic. >> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah > But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a > minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good > thing.... By "common" hanhagah tovah I meant in contrast to any kind of minhag. Something many pious people do, not the masses. Like learning all night on Shavuos in Lithuania circa 1890. But in principle, even if R Huna meant everyone was doing it: Why would hanhagah tovah mean that the rabbis endorsed it? And I think you then agree with this "in princple, when you write: >> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He >> can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi >> talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something >> entirely different? > I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact > something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a > non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in > certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are > accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The point being here, is > that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in > psak. To the point where their psak is not a valid psak. The problem > being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and > have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. R Yochanan can say something is a hanhagah tovah and not a pesaq nor even an actual minhag. > The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice > with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher... Which according to me is what "minhag garua" means. Whereas you're saying that R Yochanan refers to it as a hanhagah, but is not calling it a minhag garua. Despite the common shoresh. So we agree on w to understand this machloqes, we disagree with what to call each position. To me, Shemu'el and R Yehudah, by talking about pesaq aren't talking about minhag chashuv. To you there are. R Huna is definitely talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq. Which to me is a minhag chashuv and to you a minhag garua. And R Yochanan is talking about a practies that doesn't rise up to that level. Which to me is a minhag garua and to you not even that much. It's all just in the labels, but that changes how we read the rishonim. That is why I ignored all the gemaras you cited that don't use the /nhg/ shoresh. The rest of your post argues for something we agree about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. http://www.aishdas.org/asp All that is left to us is Author: Widen Your Tent to be as human as possible while we are here. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From zev at sero.name Thu Jul 2 08:08:02 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 11:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> Message-ID: <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking > and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul > shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking > with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the food gets hot of its own accord. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 2 11:51:19 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:51:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process In-Reply-To: <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> References: <00af01d64366$5fe9c790$1fbd56b0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626002807.GC13978@aishdas.org> <00dc01d64be3$e1ac4070$a504c150$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200626214231.GA31678@aishdas.org> <000701d64cf6$b15b6130$14122390$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200628213433.GB9277@aishdas.org> <007801d64dac$064afe20$12e0fa60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200701224322.GH2163@aishdas.org> <000901d6507a$fcea6420$f6bf2c60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200702143654.GC25994@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <003001d650a1$c6ab7350$540259f0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: >> <> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example >> of BY chalaq > Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim. It is > not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim... <> You wrote the words "parallel to my example of BT chalaq" - see above. I responded to *your* example of BY chalaq - because you said that "R' Yehuda amar Shemuel: that's what we pasken - is parallel to my example of BY chalaq" I totally agree that neither Shemuel's nor R' Yehuda's "we" are Ashenazim or Sephardim - but *you* said that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is parallel to your example of BY chalaq (which you contrasted to glatt), and BY chalaq versus glatt is about Ashkenazim and Sephardim. If you agree that BY chalaq is not a parallel, then there is no need for this discussion. But because of the parallel that you brought, I couldn't (and can't) see how you can make the statement below (which you say you agree with): > Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is > what we pasken, full stop. If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda > amar Shemuel, you would be left in no doubt that you ought to follow > R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like... If we agree that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is *not* parallel to BY chalaq, then we can agree we understand R'Yehuda amar Shmuel the same. >> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like >> glatt > But didn't you say Previously that << Minag chashuv = common > religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>... <> Err, ReBY is actually the lenient one (he says you need two Jews living in a chatzer to assur it for carrying). Rabbi Meir is the stringent one (he says you only need one Jew and the chatzer is assur). So transposing your explanation, but with the correct way round, do you agree that, "the actual halacha is strict, the hamon am are in practice nohagim to be lenient like REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the leniency. It is not din, but it is a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval - a minhag chasuv"? Now do you think that if the people did not have ReBY to rely on, but had just come up with this by themselves, against the halacha of Rabbi Meir, Rav Huna would be so tolerant? If yes, then why did he phrase it as minhag k'RebY? Why didn't he say that if there is only one Jew in the courtyard, the minhag is to carry (because it doesn't' matter whether ReBY said so or not)? But if it *does* matter that ReBY said so, then you need more than just the people coming up with this idea of only one Jew living on the chatzer themselves. You need ReBY, or some other Rav, to have said so, followed by community acceptance to have it become a minhag. > Glatt is a tricky one, > because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin... > And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as > expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R' > Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated > scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag? <> There were two different piskei halacha out there. ReBY (the lenient one) and R' Meir (the stringent one). R' Yehuda amar Shmuel states emphatically that ReBY is right, Halachically, and that the halacha is like him. R' Huna appears not to agree, otherwise he would have said what R' Yehuda amar Shemuel said. Rather, he accepts that the people having made the choice to go for the lenient position as a valid minhag. It is partially bottom up in that the people have made a choice between Psak A and Psak B, and decided to follow Psak A, in this case the lenient psak, but I do not believe they have decided to do something extrahalachic independent of there being two piskei halacha out there. It is the same scenario as following R' Yossi for milk and chicken, or Rabbi Eliezer for cutting the wood to make the knife to do the bris on shabbas. Or moving a lit candle on shabbas. Or working or not working erev pesach morning. Each case is the same underlying scenario: there were a range of piskei halacha out there. And certain communities, or sometimes the whole people, decided to follow one psak over another (even though in pure halachic terms that isn't necessarily the halacha). That is what makes it a minhag chasuv, as articulated by the Ri and the Rosh, ie that it is al pi Talmud chacham, and not just something the people came up with on their own, even where the people can provide religious justification. RMB: >> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah Chana: > But I thought if it was a <> - according to you it was a > minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a > good thing.... <> *Hanhaga tova* is *your* language, not mine. I assume you mean R' Yochanan here, not R' Huna, because you are the one who applied the words hanhaga tova to R' Yochanan in a previous post. I don't at all think that R' Yochanan is describing what he thinks of as a "hanhaga tova". I think (and I believe Rashi and Tosfos agree with me) that in this context if you have to use the term hanhaga, then he believes he is describing a hanhaga ra. <> No idea what you mean here. >> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? >> He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY >> is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to >> mine or something entirely different? > I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact > something closer to your "any other practice, religious or even a > non-religious norm that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish > people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things > people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim). The > point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is > actually flat out wrong in psak. To the point where their psak is not > a valid psak. The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the > people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there. <> He could, but in the context, where he is dealing with a situation where there is a lenient psak and a stringent psak, and where the people are going according to the lenient psak, he is clearly not saying that. He is saying it wrong what the people are doing, but if you come across somebody who has done it, they either don't have to reverse what they have done, or you don't need to create a fuss (as they have what he considers a da'as yachid to rely on). Depending on which Rashi you follow (and presumably Rashi/Tosfos in Eruvin had a different girsa in Ta'anis, given that they don't quote "not reversing", but "not protesting"). > The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this > practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher... <> Hanhaga was, as mentioned, your language, not mine. I said that one interpretation of Rabbi Yochanan is a minhag garua - that is if you hold that it is something that one shouldn't protest. Just like all the other cases in Pesachim where the rabbis said not to protest the minhagim. However if it is something one should protest, just that one doesn't make people do things again (ie our girsa in Ta'anis), then that appears to be less than a minhag garua (more like a minhag taus). <> No, I don't think so. <> No, I never said that, and I don't think so. In the case of Shmuel and R Yehuda we are talking about psak. <> No. To me what R' Huna is talking about is also minhag chashuv. I didn't think you agreed with that, but am fine if you do. If you agree that this is a minhag chashuv, then it would seem that what we disagree about is whether or not Rav Huna is "talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq". You say definitely, ie "definitely talking about a common practice performed by the people without a pesaq". I don't think this is right at all. I believe Rav Huna is talking about a common practice performed by the people *in light of ReBY's psak* Which is precisely why he phrases it as "minhag k'ReBY". Because the fact that there was a psak from ReBY is critical to his understanding. It is what makes it a minhag choshuv (and not a minhag garua). Just as the Ri and the Rosh and the Shach say that the definition of a minhag chasuv is that it is "al pi talmid chacham". This is "al pi talmid chacham" - the psak of ReBY, which is key to what drove the people. No ReBY, no such minhag. And R' Huna is expressing this clearly by linking the minhag with the psak of ReBY. <> Not quite. If we didn't have the girsa we do in Ta'anis, ie we had the girsa that Rashi and Tosfos in Eruvin seem to have had, I would say this was a minhag garua. Problem is, our girsa in Ta'anis doesn't just say, we don't protest, but we don't make them do over again or go back (given that in Ta'anis we are talking about kohanim duchaning at nei'lah, presumably that means we don't have the Shatz resay the non duchaning language, after the kohanim have ostensibly duchened, or make the kohanim sit down once they have said the bracha). That suggests that we do in fact protest if we can get to them before they get started duchening. I don't think something that the chachamim were prepared to protest, even if the view they are protesting is based on the psak of a Talmud Chacham, can be considered any kind of minhag, except perhaps a minhag taus. <> I agree it is all in the labels, but I thought there was something more fundamental here. My understanding of your position was that if the people were following a particular psak (such as the people following the psak of ReBY or the people following the psak of Rabbi Yehuda not to work on the morning of erev pesach), that could not be called minhag. Rathein your view minhag, including minhag choshuv, had to be something that was generated by the people themselves, like milchigs on Shavuos, ie completely bottom up. That is why I could not see how you characterised what R' Huna said, of minhag k'ReBY as minhag, as it didn't seem to fit. Whereas my understanding of a minhag chashuv was that it needed to have at its root a psak of a Rav, with the bottom up aspect of it being the people's, or a community of people's, decision to take on that particular psak, even in the face of disagreement from other Rabbonim. That seems to fit perfectly with Rav Huna's statement of minhag k'ReBY. I thus understand a completely bottom up minhag as falling within the category of minhag garua (or just minhag)- although even within that category, there are those that have strong rabbinic approval, and those that have weak to non-existent rabbinic approval (depending on how garua they are). But like your minhag chashuv, my minhag garua does have to relate to something religious/halachic, even though at some point one reaches a situation where the rabbis come out full force against what the people are doing. The reason I am so vague about the line between minhag garua and minhag taus, is that this line seems very difficult to define, Ie at what point does a minhag which is very garua tip into a minhag taus seems hard for me to pinpoint (I have been looking at two cases of very dodgy minhagim, namely women in states of tuma'ah - both involving, inter alia, women not going to shul - one during their periods, and one in the period after giving birth, and the attitudes towards them couldn't be more different. The one is reasonably accepted as something of an acceptable minhag, with some rabbinic blessing, even though the origins are difficult, and it is clear it is solely women generated, while the other gets the full minhag taus, must be stamped out, treatment, at least amongst some. Even though on first glance they would seem to be directly parallel). While you, I thought given that you characterised what I called minhag garua as being minhag chasuv, understood minhag garua as being something done even by non-Jews that had halachic impact, which didn't seem to me to be what was being discussed in the gemora in Pesachim at any point, and hence not the subject of the Ri and Rosh's distinction there. -Micha Regards Chana From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 14:38:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 17:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: free public transport on Shabbos/Yomtov In-Reply-To: <004401d644dc$61126e20$23374a60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004401d644dc$61126e20$23374a60$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200702213852.GD25994@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 08:20:35PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > There are a fair number of shops, but there are a fair number of houses too > (and some blocks of flats, definitely majority Jewish). We know people who > live in a couple of the houses right on Golders Green road... A balebatishe comment: It needn't be people right on the road, though. Bus lines are routed to serve neighborhoods. Even if it were a street entirely of shops and other commercial enterprises, a route would take into account any residential areas that are in easy walking distance to any stops. Which is certainly true of what I remember from Golder's Green Road. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless http://www.aishdas.org/asp he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. Author: Widen Your Tent Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 15:23:32 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:23:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 00:29 Zev Sero via Avodah, wrote: > On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > > > I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking > > and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul > > shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking > > with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either. > > Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. > The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the > food gets hot of its own accord. > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and metal heated by a magnetic field? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 15:45:36 2020 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:45:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <20200702141404.GB25994@aishdas.org> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Simon Montagu Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 01:44 Subject: Re: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status To: Micha Berger On Thu, 2 Jul 2020, 17:14 Micha Berger, wrote: > > The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't > apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for > refu'ah beShabbos. > > Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the > gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their > motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking > via fir > Lo p'log is not a universal. There are plenty of cases where hazal and the pos'kim explore in which scenarios gezeirot are or are not relevant (as opposed to implementation details in what is essentially the same situation, such as pianos or violins on shabbat). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 15:58:34 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:58:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais haVaad] Police Protection: Are Officers Liable for Injuries They Inflict? Message-ID: <20200702225834.GA17037@aishdas.org> I think this topic has crossed all of our minds lately. >From https://www.baishavaad.org/police-protection-are-officers-liable-for-injuries-they-inflict/ Tir'u baTov! -Micha The Bais HaVaad Halacha Center Police Protection: Are Officers Liable for Injuries They Inflict? Adapted from the writings of Dayan Yitzhak Grossman July 2, 2020 On June 12, Atlanta Police Department officers Garrett Rolfe and Devin Brosnan were attempting to handcuff Rayshard Brooks and arrest him for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Brooks wrestled with the officers, seized Brosnan's Taser, and attempted to flee. With Rolfe pursuing him, Brooks turned and fired the Taser toward Rolfe. Rolfe then shot at Brooks three times, striking him twice in the back and killing him. Rolfe was subsequently charged with felony murder and ten other offenses. In considering Rolfe's possible culpability for killing Brooks, the first issue is whether the shooting was justified as self-defense. We do not consider here this specific question, but only the general question of the liability of a duly authorized agent of the state for the use of force resulting in injury or death. Agents of the court In the Mishnah, Abba Sha'ul rules that a father who strikes his son, a teacher who disciplines his student, and an agent of the court, who accidentally kill, are not subject to the law of exile (galus).[1] The Tosefta rules similarly with regard to civil liability for nonlethal injury: The father, the teacher, and the agent of the court are all exempt, unless the force used is "more than is appropriate," in which case they are liable.[2] An alternate formulation appears elsewhere in the Tosefta: The agent is exempt if he injures inadvertently (b'shogeg), but liable if he injures deliberately (b'meizid), "out of concern for tikun olam."[3] R' Shimon ben Tzemach Duran explains that these two formulations are equivalent: If the force used is "appropriate" but nevertheless results in injury, the agent is considered shogeg, but if it is "more than is appropriate," he is considered meizid. He also explains that the liability in the case of meizid is in accordance with the normal laws of torts, and the concern for tikun olam is the rationale for the exemption of shogeg, i.e., Chazal absolved a shogeg from liability despite the principle of adam muad l'olam, by which people are usually held liable for torts committed b'shogeg.[4] It would seem that according to this approach, "shogeg" here has its general meaning of an act that while inadvertent, nevertheless has an element of negligence to it, and so would engender liability were it not for the concern for tikun olam, since it would seem absurd for an agent of the court who carried out his duty entirely properly to be liable for its consequences (were it not for tikun olam), any more than the court itself and its agents would be liable as tortfeasors for the very imposition of punishment such as lashes or execution upon a miscreant![5] In apparent contradiction to the assumption of the Tosefta that an agent of the court is not authorized to use more force than necessary to carry out his duty stands a ruling of Rabbeinu Yerucham ben Meshulam, accepted by some poskim, that an agent of the court who strikes the body or damages the property of a recalcitrant person is exempt even if he was able to accomplish his goal by other means.[6] It seems that this opinion understands that the availability of nonviolent means does not automatically render the use of violence "more than is appropriate." Thus in Rabbeinu Yerucham's case, although alternative nonviolent means were available, once the agent chose to utilize violence, the level of force he used was the minimum necessary to accomplish his goal, whereas in the case of the Tosefta, the level of force utilized was gratuitously high. Alternatively, some contemporary writers consider it self-evident that Rabbeinu Yerucham concedes that the authorities have no right to use "excessive" and "unreasonable" force relative to the goal of preserving the rule of law.[7] Perhaps, then, when the Tosefta assigns liability where the force used was "more than is appropriate," it is referring to just such "excessive" and "unreasonable" force. In any event, other poskim disagree with Rabbeinu Yerucham's ruling and maintain that an agent of the court is only exempt from liability for the use of force if he had no other means to achieve his goal.[8] The exemption of an agent of the court only applies provided force was used in order to compel compliance with the court's directives, but not when motivated by anger.[9] Some contemporary writers assume that a police officer would have the same status as the "agent of the court" discussed by Chazal and would therefore be exempt from liability insofar as his use of force was appropriate. __________________________________________________________________ [1]Makkos 2:2. Cf. Rambam and Ra'avad Hilchos Rotzeiach Ushmiras Hanefesh 5:6, and Bnei V'lechem Yehudah, Bnei Shmuel, Gur Aryeh, Hamei'ir La'aretz, Kruv Mimshach, Ma'asei Rokeach, Mirkeves Hamishneh, Ein Tarshish, and Shufrei D'Yaakov ibid.; Shu"t Shevus Yaakov cheilek 3 siman 140; R. Yehuda Zoldan, Tzidkas Yehuda V'Yisrael, siman 6 os 1; R. Moshe Taragin, Shliach Bais Din Sheharag Beshogeg. One version of the Tosefta contains a position contrary to that of Abba Sha'ul; see Or Sameiach Hilchos Rotzeiach 5:6 and Tzidkas Yehuda V'Yisrael ibid. [2]Tosefta Bava Kama 9:3. [3]Ibid. Gittin 3:13. [4]Shu"t Tashbatz cheilek 3 siman 82. [5]This is certainly true according to the poskim that maintain that the principle of adam muad l'olam does not apply to oness gamur (see Tosafos Bava Kama 27b s.v. uShmuel amar; Shulchan Aruch C.M. 378:1-3 and Shach ibid. s.k. 1). [6]Sefer Maysharim Nesiv 31 cheilek 2 p. 92 second column, cited by Sema C.M. siman 8 s.k. 25 and Ba'er Heitev ibid. s.k. 8. [7]Adv. Yaakov Shapiro and Dr. Michael Vigoda, Shimush B'choach al Yedei Hamishtarah, n. 33. [8]Toras Chaim Bava Kama end of daf 28; Shevus Yaakov cheilek 1 siman 180, cited in Pis'chei Teshuvah ibid. s.k. 6; Sha'ar Mishpat ibid. s.k. 2; Aruch Hashulchan ibid. se'if 6; Yeshuos Yisrael ibid. Ein Mishpat s.k. 2 and Chukas Hamishpat s.k. 6. Erech Shai ibid. se'if 5 concludes that the matter is a s'feika d'dina. Cf. Halacha Pesukah ibid. p. 86 n. 214. [9]Shu"t Ra'anach (Yerushalayim 5720) siman 111 p. 475. Cf. Shevus Ya'akov cheilek 3 end of siman 140 and Shimush B'choach al Yedei Hamishtarah. From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 16:02:21 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:02:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200702230221.GA7250@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 01:23:32AM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: >> Glowing hot metal is included in "fire". Here there is no fire at all. >> The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the >> food gets hot of its own accord. > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and > metal heated by a magnetic field? I believe Zev is saying that the induction cooker doesn't cause any metal to glow. However, when you cook on an old-school electric stove, the coil will glow. And glowing is included in "eish". (I'm not sure about the last part. I think it would depend on whether causing a gachales shel mateches is bishul or havarah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. http://www.aishdas.org/asp Life is about creating yourself. Author: Widen Your Tent - George Bernard Shaw - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From zev at sero.name Thu Jul 2 17:03:56 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 20:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: <20200630205300.GC15888@aishdas.org> <69ac2a97-217c-01d1-d194-3f7592b8ea8c@sero.name> <93fa6e2d-017a-ceec-fe42-672b2895e9de@sero.name> Message-ID: On 2/7/20 6:23 pm, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > Glowing hot metal is included in "fire".? Here there is no fire at all. > The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the > food gets hot of its own accord. > > > What is the difference between metal heated by an electric current and > metal heated by a magnetic field? The pot or pan doesn't get nearly hot enough to qualify as fire. It doesn't have to, since it's heating the food directly, rather than heating a pot sitting on top of it, which will then heat the food it contains. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Thu Jul 2 17:02:12 2020 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 00:02:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Realities of Times Past (Was: Latecomers to shul on Friday night) Message-ID: R?Akiva Miller asks (38/54) a typically thoughtful question about adding Magen Avot on Friday night. The reasoning and realities are difficult to understand, he notes, and so he asks, ?There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better?? I don?t have any answers for him but I have similar questions about reasons given for other changes in halacha. For example, we don?t blow shofar on RH that falls on Shabbat (thus missing out on a Biblical commandment) because of three maybes: (a) maybe someone will be blowing who doesn?t know how to do do properly, (b) maybe that will happen on a Shabbat RH, and (c) maybe that person will carry the shofar in a reshut harabim to an expert for instruction. Well, how often would that occur? Was this common in those days? And if so, why? It?s not common today for shofar blowers to go to experts on RH to give them instruction. And equally difficult fir me to understand, wasn?t there some other way to prevent the triple maybe sin of carrying other than making all the Jewish people for generations on end miss out on a once a year biblical commandment.? Was society so different that this was really an otherwise unmanageable problem at the time the ruling was put into effect? To paraphrase Akiva, there?s something that I'm missing about the realities of that time; can anyone explain the reasoning better? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From marty.bluke at gmail.com Fri Jul 3 00:13:36 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 10:13:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop Message-ID: R? Simon Montagu asked: > That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a > Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for > the gezeira seem to apply.... This would seem to be a classic case of davar shebminyan tzorich minyan acher lhatiro which we don?t have. There are many gezeras that we observe today even though the reason behind the gezera no longer applies. For example, taking medicine on shabbos is prohibited because you may grind the ingredients. In today?s world of pills the reason no longer applies yet most poskim still prohibit taking pills for something like a headache. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:17:50 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 17:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200706211750.GA10250@aishdas.org> Someone pointed me to https://www.torahbase.org/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%A0%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D See section 6. R' Asher Weid isn't comfortable have a nakhri cook for you by microwave. Something I had thought was pretty commonly accepted. In this case, he allws, but only because the situation that required getting a housekeeper to cook is a she'as hadechaq, and because hiring a Jewish housekeeper would be a hotza'ah merubah. Only adding the lack of aish as a yeish le'ayein and is willing to use it as an additional "chazi le'itztarufei". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he http://www.aishdas.org/asp brought an offering. But to bring an offering, Author: Widen Your Tent you must know where to slaughter and what - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 01:31:54 2020 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:31:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Realities of Times Past (Was: Latecomers to shul on Friday night) Message-ID: Fellow Ovedim have (IIRC at the behest of RAM who asked the question) been wondering why Tefillat Me'eyn Sheva' is said on Friday evenings. RJK particularly cited RAM: > "The reasoning and realities are difficult to understand," he notes, " > and so," he asks: "There's something that I'm missing about the > realities of how those minyanim were organized, the speed they > davened at, and/or the dangers lurking about. Can anyone explain > the story better?" There may be a clue in an article by Jacob Mann. Jacob Mann was, as far as I can reconstruct, a Pzsworsker Chassid who loved Judaism and learning, but upon landing the USA possibly tragically aligned himself with the wrong crowd. But this is just a reconstruction. For all I know, him publishing a bunch of articles in the Reform"Hebrew Union College Annual" may have been because it was in his eyes the most widespread scholarly publication, one that would afford him the most exposure. Interestingly, he insisted on transliterating Hebrew into Ashkenazi pronunciation, and HUCA agreed. At any rate, he was a pretty interesting historian of liturgy and may have been on to certain things correctly. In an article entitled Changes in the Divine Service of the Synagogue due to Persecution, he brings evidence for several periods of anti Jewish persecutions in which certain prayers or practices were prohibited, giving rise to creative solutions. Though he does not deal with Me'eyn Sheva' (as far as I remember), the setting seems to work well. Perhaps Me'eyn Sheva came from a time when Jews had to pray outside the settlements, because they were praying in hiding, and thus had to watch out for each other's safety. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 03:59:50 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:59:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status Message-ID: Rav Hershel Schachter has a fascinating essay in his Sefer about when we say lo plug by gezeros and when not. It has been a while but I believe he says that gezeros are all lo plug except if the reason was written into the nusach of the gezera. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 13:16:24 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 16:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Induction stovetop halachic status In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200707201624.GE25868@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 01:59:50PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Rav Hershel Schachter has a fascinating essay in his Sefer about when we > say lo plug by gezeros and when not. It has been a while but I believe he > says that gezeros are all lo plug except if the reason was written into the > nusach of the gezera. The problem is, that determination is often non-trivial to make. Where is the end-quote -- is the explanation part of the quote of the wording of the gezeira, or the gemara's explanation of its purpose stated and stated after the quote? We discussed this idea many years ago, when I proposed this was the root of the machloqes about basar kafui. Very related is that it is also sometimes unclear when something is a pesaq in existing law, and when a gezeira. If it's a pesaq, then applicability is built in whether or not it's stated. Pesaqim only hold if the situation is materially the same. What the gemara says about putting out a burning house on Shabbos wouldn't apply to a wood-frame house in an urban or most suburban settings because the risk to life is simply different. Like the Peri Chadash vs the Chasam Sofer about chalav yisrael; the PC says CY is a pesaq, so he has little problem saying that CY is moot when there is other disincentive to adulterating the milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness http://www.aishdas.org/asp which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost Author: Widen Your Tent again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Jul 7 14:44:42 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 21:44:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Risk Reward Message-ID: <1594171681704.0f3bd39e3250de82@aishdas.org> A note I wrote To a pulpit rabbi: I strongly support a recent discussion concerning return to synagogue. I do have to say that there's one point that I deeply disagree on. Maybe it's a matter of nuance that cannot be communicated in trying times to the general public. I don't believe that flattening the curve has no halachic import. In fact as a community we are always making this kind of trade off. If not why wouldn't we spend every dollar we have on improving public health. The answer per R' Schachter and R' Weiss is that's the way the world operates. Bottom line risk reward tradeoffs are often very difficult. Personally I'd prefer we be more open and honest about them and have public discussion but realize that may not be practical So what is the halachic philosophy of risk/reward? perhaps a starting point The cohain gadol and the alternates for himself or wife on Yom Kippur? Kt Joel Rich From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 19:15:59 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 22:15:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Francis Collins on Science and Religion Message-ID: <20200708021559.GA27334@aishdas.org> An interview with Dr. Francis Collins (an Obama appointee now most famous for being Dr. Anthony Fauci's boss). https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/anthony-faucis-boss-on-why-things-could-be-much-better-soon.html Three snippets that are on topic for our group, but there is more discussion of G-d there than this: "I was an atheist when I entered medical school. I was a Christian when I left and it was much driven by this experience of trying to integrate the reductionist aspects of science into the much more fundamental issues I saw my patients wrestling with, like is there a God and does God care about me and what happens after I die? "Those are uncomfortable questions for an atheist 23-year-old, but ultimately they became totally compelling and required some investigation and some answers. Ultimately, out of that, it came to me that it makes a lot more sense to believe in God than to deny God's existence. A scientist isn't supposed to make assertions that you would call universal negatives, because you can never have enough evidence to do that, and yet that's what atheism calls you to do. ... "Similarly, the way that some people have caricatured science as a threat to God, that doesn't resemble the science that I'm doing. It's been a terrible, I think, consequence of our last century or so that this polarization has been accepted as inevitable when I see it not at all in that light. There are many interesting scientific questions that tap into the kind of area that you're asking about, like what is the neuroscientific basis of consciousness? What is the neuroscientific basis of a spiritual experience? If there is such a neuroscientific basis, does that make this spiritual experience less meaningful or more so? Those are fun conversations to have." "... What is our future? I don't want to see a future where this science-versus-faith conflict leads to a winner and a loser. If science wins and faith loses, we end up with a purely technological society that has lost its moorings and foundation for morality. I think that could be a very harsh and potentially violent outcome. But I don't want to see a society either where the argument that science is not to be trusted because it doesn't agree with somebody's interpretation of a Bible verse wins out. That forces us back into a circumstance where many of the gifts that God has given us through intellectual curiosity and the tools of science have to be put away. "So I want to see a society that flourishes by bringing these worldviews together by being careful about which worldview is most likely to give you the truth, depending on the question you're asking." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole http://www.aishdas.org/asp heart, your entire soul, and all you own." Author: Widen Your Tent Love is not two who look at each other, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:30:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714183052.GC21268@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:40:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate > dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), > as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will > be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised > (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- > r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? I'm uncomfortable with your formulation, but I think I agree with your point. As microelectronics become more embedded in society, it's harder to consider their use uvda dechol. So pesaqim ought change. In RMF's case.... What changed over time was not whether a given fact was uvda dechol. He assumed that use of a timer would pose mar'is ayin issues, and that metzi'us changed. A close parallel, but not exactly the same. And yes, it could well be the tzibbur who make that point known to the posqim. (Especially today, when the gedolim we look to for pesaq often are men who never left yeshiva life. As opposed to the previous generations when we looked to the town's rav for pesaqim.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward http://www.aishdas.org/asp by patting yourself on the back. Author: Widen Your Tent -Anonymous - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:30:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:30:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] electronics redux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714183052.GC21268@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:40:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate > dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), > as microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will > be micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised > (even as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- > r moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...) Your thoughts? I'm uncomfortable with your formulation, but I think I agree with your point. As microelectronics become more embedded in society, it's harder to consider their use uvda dechol. So pesaqim ought change. In RMF's case.... What changed over time was not whether a given fact was uvda dechol. He assumed that use of a timer would pose mar'is ayin issues, and that metzi'us changed. A close parallel, but not exactly the same. And yes, it could well be the tzibbur who make that point known to the posqim. (Especially today, when the gedolim we look to for pesaq often are men who never left yeshiva life. As opposed to the previous generations when we looked to the town's rav for pesaqim.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward http://www.aishdas.org/asp by patting yourself on the back. Author: Widen Your Tent -Anonymous - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:21:12 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Yehareig velo ya'avor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I posted on this issue here and on another list: >> If a Ben Noach [Noahide, i.e. non-Jew] is being forced to abrogate >> one of his 7 mitzvot... > I received this [from Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter]: >> If you accept the authority of Rambam, this is black-letter law. See Sefer >> Shoftim, Hilkhoth Mlakhim UMilxmotheyhem, Chapter 10, Paragraph 2: "A Ben-Noax >> who is compelled to violate one of his commandments is allowed to do so > Thanks for the cite! If you check out the mishneh lmelech there For those who didn't look, it's at: https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rtype=%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98&mfid=104611&rid=15005 > he refers > to the parshat drachim derech atarim (drasha #2) who makes exactly the > argument I proposed as why a ben noach would be required to give up his > life rather than kill someone. But also says "debishfichus damim mitzvah haben-noach sheyeihareig ve'al ya'avor". By making it about "mai chazis" it isn't about the 7 mitzvos in general, or even the other two mitzvos that for Jews are yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Rather, because the only question is who dies, not the comparative values are life vs obedience. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation http://www.aishdas.org/asp -- just think of an incurable disease such as Author: Widen Your Tent inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 11:25:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:25:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:38:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger wrote: >> But in general, there is an increasing reluctance to pasqen in >> some circles. Whether Brisker chumeros or the MB's advice to >> either play safe in some places or avoid the question in another. >> So, we're seeing more and more of it. > I spent a couple of minutes trying to think of examples of this phenomenon, > and I ended up agreeing that this *seems* to be more common in hilchos > brachos... > However, in most other areas of halacha, it's not a choice of this or that. > It's a question of issur and heter. (Or of chiyuv and not.) In such cases, > "avoiding the situation" tends to be synonymous with "being machmir".... I would agree for the "defy the question" pesaqim being more common in hilkhos berakhos. But I don't see Brisker chumeros or baal nefesh yachmir being more of a berakhah thing. Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of safeiq would be lehaqeil. My largely implied question was how to save this reluctance to pasqen from accusations of lack of faith in the entire concept of pesaq and deciding halakhah. Nu, so for the Briskers, I takeh think they don't believe that a pesaq settles the din anymore. As the Rambam put it, Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah. But for the CC and the rest of us? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; http://www.aishdas.org/asp Experience comes from bad decisions. Author: Widen Your Tent - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From zev at sero.name Tue Jul 14 12:29:37 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Yehareig velo ya'avor In-Reply-To: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> References: <20200714182112.GA21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <27345b4a-f329-cfd4-8b0f-8b8be1147f72@sero.name> >> Thanks for the cite! If you check out the mishneh lmelech there > > For those who didn't look, it's at: > https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rtype=%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98&mfid=104611&rid=15005 > >> he refers >> to the parshat drachim derech atarim (drasha #2) who makes exactly the >> argument I proposed as why a ben noach would be required to give up his >> life rather than kill someone. > > But also says "debishfichus damim mitzvah haben-noach sheyeihareig ve'al > ya'avor". By making it about "mai chazis" it isn't about the 7 mitzvos > in general, or even the other two mitzvos that for Jews are yeihareig > ve'al ya'avor. Rather, because the only question is who dies, not the > comparative values are life vs obedience. Thank you. However if the Rambam agreed with this it's odd that he didn't say so. And the svara against it seems fairly simple: Yisrael are commanded in kiddush haShem; we're expected to sometimes put obedience ahead of our lives. Therefore when considering for which mitzvos we must do so, the svara of "mai chazis" compels us to include this. It wouldn't make sense to say that for AZ we must be moser nefesh, but for shfichas damim we needn't. But for Bnei Noach the whole concept of mesirus nefesh doesn't exist. They are never expected to do that; we have an explicit pasuk that they're even allowed to serve AZ rather than die. So how can we tell them to sacrifice themselves for mai chazis? On the contrary, they will tell you exactly mai chazina -- this is my life and that is his. To *me* my life is more important than his, just as I expect that to *him* his life is more important than mine. Just as I would give my life to save my children, because theirs are more important to me than mine, so I will give your life to save mine, because mine is more important to me than yours. It's only once the principle that there is something higher than survival is established that we can extend it with mai chazis. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Tue Jul 14 12:55:07 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:55:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20200714182555.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <722273ba-58af-d192-57ea-032a8f9cd3e5@sero.name> On 14/7/20 2:25 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Nu, so for the Briskers, I takeh think they don't believe that a pesaq > settles the din anymore. As the Rambam put it, Rav Ashi veRavina sof > hora'ah. Or, they believe in psak in principle, but not in their own ability to pasken, and they're not too sure about your ability either, or his or his or his. But I think there's also a good helping of the gemara's statement that a baal nefesh doesn't eat meat on which a psak was required; as the proverb goes, "a shayla macht treif". Only if the heter is found explicitly in the sources, so that no reasoning was needed can one eat the meat without any qualms. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 03:25:38 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 06:25:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue Message-ID: . R" Micha Berger wrote: > Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't > which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because > there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of > safeiq would be lehaqeil. Safeiq "rather than" pesaq?? Can the two be differentiated? Isn't psak *based* on safek, trying to figure out where Truth resides? > My largely implied question was how to save this reluctance to > pasqen from accusations of lack of faith in the entire concept > of pesaq and deciding halakhah. As I see it, it's not that we have a lack of *faith* in psak, but that we're so confused about how it works. And especially, how it works nowadays when there's no Sanhedrin. To me, the classic case in bitul is bitul b'rov. Does the minority really lose its identity to the point that all pieces can be eaten by a single person at one time? Or is it only a procedural psak, such that we are fearful for each item, and they must be shared among several people, or eaten by one person at different times, etc etc. And it carries through to psak too. Can I really ignore the minority opinion? Without a Sanhedrin to actually discuss and vote, how can I be sure that the other camp is wrong? And so, just as we "avoided the issue" by having several people share the probably-kosher items, we also "avoid the issue" in psak by finding a situation where we don't choose between the several opinions. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 15 02:48:25 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:48:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] action or results? Message-ID: There are four identical quadruplets brothers, Robert, Simon, Larry and Judah. Robert , Larry and Simon are all asymptomatic carriers of the corona virus but Judah is not. The local law and rabbinic authorities require wearing a mask when going out in public but none of them do. The four brothers are not clearly identifiable, when seen, as orthodox Jews but are so known by the public. They all go outside to identical public events where their identities are not known. Robert infects a number of people but he's never identified as the source of the infection. Larry infects a number of people and is identified as a source of infection in the media. Judah never infects anybody and neither does Simon. What shows up on each brothers' permanent record card in shamayim? Is it multidimensional? 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 JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 15 02:50:41 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? 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 zev at sero.name Wed Jul 15 07:03:18 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5622a8f8-7434-2f3e-086c-d0052a01ff28@sero.name> On 15/7/20 5:50 am, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required to > give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol > worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching > theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and > not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? I don't believe there is. These three are not worse than other sins. E.g. murder is only an issur hereg, and is therefore *less* severe than any issur skila and sreifa. So the term "Big 3" is a misnomer; they're in the category for being big. And they didn't all get in to the category in the same way. Avoda Zara comes from the pasuk "venikdashti". Murder comes in from the svara of "mai chazis". And all the arayos come in because of the pasuk that compares eshes ish to murder, so they are included in the "mai chazis" even though that svara doesn't apply to them! Which is very strange. Then there are other mitzvos that also *obviously* override pikuach nefesh, so obviously that they don't need to be listed, such as milchemes mitzvah. (For that matter, since one is required to go even to a milchemes hareshus if the king conscripts one, that too must override pikuach nefesh. And obviously war overrides venishmartem.) Bris also involves a certain level of risk, and historically it was just accepted that a certain number of babies will die from it, and that we have to accept this. So to that extent it also overrides pikuach nefesh, until the risk rises high enough to change that. Losing one child obviously increases the probability of there being a genetic defect in the family, and yet it is not enough to cancel future brissen in that family. Only a second loss does that. Then we have a pasuk that earning a living justifies taking certain risks with ones life; while I wouldn't call this overriding pikuach nefesh or venishmartem, it obviously puts a limit on those principles that many people don't consciously acknowledge. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 15:13:54 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200715221354.GF8072@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:50:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required > to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of idol > worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one overarching > theme that links these three transgressions that explains why these and > not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? One is the greatest violation of Torah, one of Avodah, and one of Gemilus Chassadim. AZ as the inverse of Avodah and Murder as the inverse of Gema"ch shouldn't need elaboration. As for arayos... In the Maharal's commentary on that mishnah, he describes the three amudei olam as a relationship with one's soul, with G-d and with other people. Torah perfects the relatiosionship with oneself. Whereas someone who pursues arayos turns that self into a menuval. Torah is about perfection of the mind, middos and the rest of the soul. Arayos is about giving up on all that and just answering to the body. Living cannot be at the expense of an axe to a pillar one's life stands on. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of http://www.aishdas.org/asp greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, Author: Widen Your Tent in fact, of our modesty. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 05:42:49 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 08:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > We learned that there are three mitzvot that a Jew is always required > to give up his life for rather than violate the transgressions of > idol worship, murder or forbidden sexual relations. Is there one > overarching theme that links these three transgressions that explains > why these and not others (e.g. shabbat, brit)? If there's an overarching theme, I haven't found it yet. I have tried to find the reason for each of these three, what makes them different than the other 610, and I've come up with very different answers for each of them. If I'm not mistaken, murder is the only one for which the Gemara gives an explicit reason. If my life is at stake, and the only solution is at the cost of someone else's life, who's to say that my blood is redder? Simple math. Or simple logic, your choice. Next is avodah zara. I came up with this answer myself, so I eagerly welcome any comments about it. My logic is like this: An inventive mind can come up with all sorts of justifications for violating mitzvos in extreme circumstances. "Violate this Shabbos so he will keep many other Shabbosos," for example. Eliyahu built a bamah on Har Carmel, because he knew it would lead to Kiddush Hashem. But Avoda Zara is the sort of thing where - by definition - the means NEVER justify the ends. There is NO situation in which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be Kiddush Hashem. It's a contradiction in terms. Even the opportunity to do mitzvos for the rest of my life can't justify an actual Avodah Zara today. (I'm not talking about where someone merely pretends to do Avodah Zara; that's a more complicated topic and might be justified by some poskim in some cases.) But to actually do real Avodah Zara is treason against Hashem and never allowed. That leaves Arayos. This is a very strange halacha, especially to the general culture arounds us, which accepts these acts (when done by consenting adults) as victimless pleasures, not capital crimes. Non-logical chukim. So why is it that we must avoid these acts, even at the cost of our lives? Doesn't make sense. The tentative answer I've come up with is that this halacha is meant to help insure solid family life. Society around us is falling apart, and many people think that one of the causes is that too many children grow up without strong family values. It is merely my guess, but I can't help but suspect that this is why Hashem made Arayos so very very assur, to impress this value upon us. Even if (lo aleinu) a situation actually arises, and a person is tempted to rationalize that he can do this aveirah today and live to do mitzvos tomorrow, it is still not worth it. That's the message of the severity of this halacha. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hanktopas at gmail.com Sun Jul 19 06:59:31 2020 From: hanktopas at gmail.com (Henry Topas) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 09:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: Recently, I have heard of some shuls beginning Shabbat morning davening at Nishmat or even at Shochayn Ad. This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the same Sha'tz conclude what he started? Kol tuv, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 00:59:57 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:59:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan Message-ID: Just catching up and the message from R' Joel Rich on Sun, 24 May 2020 caught my eye. RJJ wrote: > In the case of the woman putting on a tallis without tzitzis- there > was no real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis > - ie fulfil the mitzvah (except her rabbi told her not to), so why > would you be satisfied with second best. I'm not so sure about the "no real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis" part. In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar could cause carrying in a public domain. Along those lines one could argue that a tallis may also cause one to carry in the public domain if not tied properly, or strings break off, etc. Just a thought, - Danny From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Jul 20 07:02:26 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:02:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when > we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed > by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as > the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the > same Sha'tz conclude what he started? See S"A O"C 53:3 (Shatz vs. tzibbur) https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Orach_Chayim.53.3 She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, Joel Rich From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 11:26:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:59:57AM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: > In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. > > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. ... In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! So, I'm not sure why the HM needs to invoke the risk of an aveirah. Lo zakhisi lehavin. And more to our point, the lack of berakhah doesn't seem to me to prove the mitzvah itself should be avoided because it means some risk exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but the lighting of a fire. Author: Widen Your Tent - W.B. Yeats - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From cbkaufman at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 13:58:38 2020 From: cbkaufman at gmail.com (Brent Kaufman) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:58:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 (4) Message-ID: There are actually 4 big ones that one must voluntarily give one's life rather than transgress. A person is obligated to die rather than transgress any mitzvah in the Torah if one is being forced to do so publicly during a time of shmad. The Rambam lists this, but I didn't check before writing this, for its exact reference. chaimbaruch kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 19:12:11 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 22:12:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] big 3 Message-ID: . I wrote: > But Avoda Zara is the sort of thing where - by definition - > the means NEVER justify the ends. There is NO situation in > which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be Kiddush > Hashem. It's a contradiction in terms. I made a typing error there. What I had intended to write was: "There is NO situation in which actually doing Avodah Zara could possibly be *L'Shem Shamayim*. It's a contradiction in terms." It's not difficult to imagine situations (or cite historical incidents) where someone might do an aveirah L'Shem Shamayim. But that's for the other 612. It seems to me categorically impossible for someone to do actual Avoda Zara (as opposed to merely going through the motions, which is also assur, but *possibly* not yehareg v'al yaavor) for L'Shem Shamayim reasons. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 05:41:45 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:41:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: > This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when > we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed > by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as > the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the > same Sha'tz conclude what he started? I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. E.g.: We learned in a Mishna in Brachos that if the Shat"z cannot continue, a substitute continues where he left off. More common: Aveilim often switch Shat"z at Ashrei - the 2nd one saying Kadish Tiskabal (may our prayers be accepted) even though the first one said the actual Amida that this is going on. In your case, both congregants will be saying both opening and closing Brachot - so I'm not even sure what you're asking. Kol Tuv - Danny From doniels at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 05:34:42 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:34:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> References: <20200720182655.GB26547@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB commented on my thought: > In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos > that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To > the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem > in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! That's THIS VERY Rambam. > So, I'm not sure why the HM needs to invoke the risk of an aveirah. Lo > zakhisi lehavin. > > And more to our point, the lack of berakhah doesn't seem to me to prove > the mitzvah itself should be avoided because it means some risk exists. My mistake for getting you mixed up. The HM isn't commenting on Tzitzis - that part is my "chiddush"... that there's a "good reason" why women didn't wear Tzitzis over the generations. The HM was commenting IIUC why the Rambam talks about women wearing Tzitzis but not Tefillin. I can't find the HM on Sefria, or I'd link to it. Kol Tuv - Danny From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Tue Jul 21 12:08:22 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:08:22 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan Message-ID: <000001d65f92$4e243cf0$ea6cb6d0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:59:57AM +0300 RDS wrote: > In Hil. Tzitzis 3:9 the Rambam says that women don't make a brocho on a Tallis. > > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. And then RMB responded: <> We need to back up here. There is a fundamental machlokus in the gemora between Rabbi Yehuda (supported by Rabbi Meir), and Rabbi Yossi (supported by Rabbi Shimon) as to whether women are permitted to perform mitzvos aseh she hzman grama - from which they are exempt. Rabbi Yossi says "reshus" - ie they are allowed. Rabbi Yehuda says no, it is assur for women to perform mitzvos asseh shehazman grama. And there are two explanations given for Rabbi Yehuda forbidding women performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. The first (eg by Rashi) is of Bal Tosif. That is, if the Torah says women are exempt from performing certain mitzvos, then for them to go ahead and perform them would violate the principle of bal tosif. However, most rishonim argue that bal tosif does not make sense here, and therefore most rishonim, including those who posken like Rabbi Yehuda, do so not under the principle of bal tosif, but under a principle that can be called "halachic counter-pressure". That is, even Rabbi Yehuda did not forbid all women from doing acts that constitute mitzvos (such as sitting in a sukkah on Sukkos, which, if you follow the bal tosif principle would be ossur for a women to do), but only where there are halachic counter-pressures, and the Haagahos Maimoniyos is quoting some of the halachic counter-pressures that the rishonim discuss. As we all know, we posken (both Sephardim (via the Shulchan Aruch) and Ashkenazim (via the Rema)), like Rabbi Yossi, that women *may* perform mitzvos aseh shehazman grama, and this Rambam is one of the bases for the way the Shulchan Aruch poskens. However: a) there are a significant number of rishonim who posken like Rabbi Yehuda; and b)even within Rabbi Yossi, there are those who say that Rabbi Yossi only permits where the halachic counter-pressure is something less than a Torah prohibition. If, like the Rambam, you holds that saying a bracha sheino tzricha is a Torah violation, and you hold according to this view in Rabbi Yossi, you end up with the Rambam's position. If you follow Tosfos (Ri and Rabbanu Tam), who holds that saying a bracha sheino tzricha is merely a rabbinic prohibition, then following Rabbi Yossi t would be pushed aside in the circumstance of a woman performing a mitzvah that is a reshus. So holds the Rema. For various talks I have given on this, I have drawn up the following diagrams - I don't know if they will come out in the digest form, but I think people find them useful to understand some of the complexity. [RMB, is there some way of embedding these in the digest?] If you don't get them, I am happy to email them separately. Bottom line there are a lot of rishonim who did not hold like Rabbi Yossi, and this is reflected in, inter alia, the discussion regarding tzitzis. Because while the Tur, following his father the Rosh and the Rabbanu Tam/Ran happily permit women to make blessings over shofar and lulav, he says in Tur Orech Chaim Hilchot Tzitzit siman 17 ".And the Rambam writes that they may wrap without a blessing, and he is going in his position that explains that women are not able to bless on something from which they are exempt but Rabbanu Tam writes that they are able to bless even though they are exempt and it is better that they do not bless ..". And the Bach, picking up on this seeming contradiction says (Bach Orech Chaim Siman 17) On "And it is better that they do not bless"; There is to ask from that which he writes in siman 589 in connection with shofar that even though women are exempt they are able to blow and to bless and one should not protest. And it seems to me that it seems from here that in connection with tzitzis that it is not the custom for women to wear, and to bless, if so if a woman comes to ask ab initio if it is permitted to dress in tzitzis and to bless he should say to her that she should not bless because it is better that they should not bless given the disagreement of our rabbis but with shofar where they are already accustomed to blow and to bless they do not protest since they have on whom to rely but if they come to ask ab initio also with shofar you should say to them that they should not bless and we should rely on what was written here regarding tzitzis and this is the law [also] regarding shofar." But, it seems to me, to understand this portion, it is necessary to fully understand the depth of rishonic opposition to women performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. The Hagahios Maymoniyos was one of a number of Ashkenazi rishonim who disagreed with Rabbanu Tam/Ri/Ran and held one should posken like Rabbi Yehuda. Regards Chana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 19942 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.png Type: image/png Size: 21255 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.png Type: image/png Size: 20358 bytes Desc: not available URL: From simon.montagu at mail.gmail.com Tue Jul 21 03:40:33 2020 From: simon.montagu at mail.gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:40:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Re: zoom minyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:59 PM Danny Schoemann wrote: > In [30] the Hag. Maimoniyos brings an interesting concept "in the name > of a Gadol": Those Mitzvos which can cause an Aveiro, women don't do. > E.g. Tefillin could cause "Erva" issues with her exposed hair, Shofar > could cause carrying in a public domain. What mitzva couldn't potentially cause an aveira, including ones which women do aliba dekhulei alma? Bad timing in candle-lighting could cause hillul shabbat. On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 9:34 PM Micha Berger wrote: > In general, the Rambam doesn't have women making berakhos on mitzvos > that they are einum metzuvos ve'osos. Which Sepharadim hold today. To > the extent that ROYosef's nusach doesn't have women saying sheim Hashem > in birkhos Qeri'as Shema! As I may have noted before, the general trend among Sepharadi aharonim is to follow RT against the SA and Rambam, and say that women at least can, and IIIRC davka _should_ make berachot on these mitzvot. ROY, kedarko bakodesh, insists on following Maran. From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 22 02:56:47 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:56:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?God=92s_existence?= Message-ID: Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all. I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience. It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place I?m not sure that came out as clearly as I might?ve liked but I hope you get the general idea. Thoughts? She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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 bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 22 12:57:46 2020 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:57:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Big 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A couple of points relevant to the 'big 3'. Firstly, as has been noted, they are not the only situations of yeihareig v'al yaavor. In addition to the situation of sha'as ha'shmad, the yerushalmi notes that mitzvos bein adam l'chaveiro are also YVAY. Like theft. And I believe we pasken that way. BUT that's not to diminish their uniqueness as YVAY mitzvos. They are mentioned in targum yonasan as a discrete set of YVAY mitzvos, I noticed in the last couple of weeks while doing chad targum. Although I couldn't find it again when I looked. That does mean the derivation in the Bavli is way after the din was already known, by a few hundred years at the least. And points to a much more them being a much more fundamental set of 3 with an early origin in halacha. In response to RZS's point about there being no obvious connection between them, that may well be exactly because they represent the extremes of three different branches of avoda, per the Maharal, and their only connection being that they are all archetypes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 23 08:21:33 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:21:33 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: <002001d66104$f2fb7ea0$d8f27be0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RAM wrote: In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this is the one I want to ask about.) > The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation of > Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana (danger). > Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the Mishnah, shuls > were located outside of the cities where it was not safe to be alone > at night. The Rabbis were concerned that people who came late to shul > might be left alone while finishing to daven. To give latecomers a > chance to catch up and finish davening with everyone else, Chazal > extended the davening by adding Mei'ein Sheva. <> And RAF suggested: <> However it seems to me that this does not answer RAM's question, as the point RAM makes is that Me'en Sheva is a very short additional prayer, and doesn't seem to make much difference one way or the other. Can I make a different suggestion (but again only a suggestion). I have been looking at something called Teshuvat HaGeonim HaChadashot, which, according to Bar Ilan (which is where I sourced it) was published by Simcha Emanuel in Jerusalem, 1995, from a manuscript in the Baron Gunzberg library includes previously unpublished geonic responsa, as well as the writings of early proven?al scholars. In it, in a discussion on the nature of kaddish found at siman 35, the presumably Gaonic author explains the locations of all the kaddishim and after explaining where they are in relation to Shachrit and Mincha (and why) he says ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? +?' ????? ??, ?+ ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? [???] ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??[?]? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????. " And after the blessings of reciting the shema of arvit because the prayer of arvit is reshut [Brachot 27b] and perhaps a person will go out from the synagogue after they finish the blessings of emet v?emunah and will not pray there with ten, and it will be that he will go out without kaddish." That is, there was a genuine concern that because arvit was reshut, people might come to say shema together, and then leave, hence the kaddish after shema and before shmonei esrei of arvit. Now, if that was a genuine concern, then maybe that also explains me'in sheva (especially if you understand me'in sheva as requiring, or at least being ideally, said with the community as a whole). Maybe the point is that a latecomer, given that arvit is reshut, was likely simply to say shema and its blessings and not bother to say shmone esrei at all but simply walk out. However with the incentive of saying me'in sheva together with the rest of the congregation, and with other people prepared to wait for him so that the me'en sheva would be communal, he would actually daven shmonei esrei in the presence of the minyan, so that he could then say me'en sheva with it. >Akiva Miller Kind regards Chana From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Jul 23 09:34:09 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:34:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Latecomers to shul on Friday night Message-ID: <003001d6610f$17ad5ed0$47081c70$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: <> I should have pointed out that this particular teshuva was signed by Rav Avraham ben Rav Yitzchak - and given that he references "a few Geonim" and "other Geonim", later in the piece, it is more likely to be someone like Abraham ben Isaac de Narbonne (1110-1179), so more of a Rishon than a Gaon, despite the name of the compilation. Kind regards Chana From wolberg at yebo.co.za Sun Jul 26 09:36:50 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 18:36:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan 32:76 Message-ID: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> [AhS Yomi for yesterday covered OC 32:73-79. https://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi -mi] Loved the line: ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? -- ??? ??? ????? ???? ???. [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." -mi] Any comment on it? From zev at sero.name Sun Jul 26 16:10:19 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:10:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan 32:76 In-Reply-To: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> References: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> Message-ID: <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> On 26/7/20 12:36 pm, wolberg--- via Avodah wrote: > [AhS Yomi for yesterday covered OC 32:73-79. https://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi > -mi] > > Loved the line: ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? -- ??? ??? ????? ???? ???. > [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- > ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. > > [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts > about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." > -mi] > > Any comment on it? I think "yeseros" here means "superfluous", rather than merely "additional". Of course that begs the question, but I think that in general it's a statement of principle, not a rule for practice, though in this instance the AhS gives his opinion on what is superfluous. (I'd also translate "ein daas chachomim nocha meihem" less literally, as "Torah authorities do not approve of them", or even, riskily, "Daas Torah does not approve of them".) -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:50:00 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daas Chachamim Noachah Heimenu In-Reply-To: <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> References: <0a9501d6636a$f9532fb0$ebf98f10$@yebo.co.za> <288d99e3-be1f-32fb-298b-785e4c10a2c3@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200727105000.GA9656@aishdas.org> In translating a Hebrew quote posted to the list, I wrote: >> [Ve'osam hamchapsim chumeros yeseiros -- >> ein da'as chakhamim nochah heimenu. >> >> [And those who seek additional chumros -- the chachamim's thoughts >> about him are uneasy / wise opinions don't rest easily with him." >> -mi] On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 07:10:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > (I'd also translate "ein daas chachomim nocha meihem" less literally, as > "Torah authorities do not approve of them", or even, riskily, "Daas Torah > does not approve of them".) I was always taught something along the lines of your first version. I think it was R Yaakov Haber that I heard this from, but the idiom could equally have been intended to me something more like (loosely) "... isn't thinking with daas Torah". I found the argument compelling enough to try to offer both translations. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From driceman at optimum.net Mon Jul 27 07:36:27 2020 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?God=E2=80=99s_existence?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> RJR: > > Wanted to bounce an idea off of you all. > I?m doing an ongoing class in Rambam?s Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah > We compared the Rambam?s concept of ?knowing? (cognitively) Of God?s existence with Rav Lichtenstein?s Source of Faith piece which focuses on experience. > > It seems to me that there was a fundamental paradigm shift (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) probably with the enlightenment and scientific revolution et al > > In thinking about it I would say in general that the traditional yeshiva beit medrash approach ( as articulated by the Rav) does not look at paradigm shift but independent continuity of a unique discipline of halachic man yet here it seems to have taken place I haven?t read RAL?s essay (link?), but doesn?t RYhL use this idea at the beginning of the Kuzari, a generation before the Rambam? David Riceman From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Jul 27 09:04:15 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:04:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?God=E2=80=99s_existence?= In-Reply-To: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> References: , <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> Message-ID: <1E4BB098-3996-4C02-9BE1-6CA8B3672151@Segalco.com> I haven?t read RAL?s essay (link?), https://www.etzion.org.il/en/source-faith-faith-itself 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:14:27 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:14:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avoiding the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727201427.GC12492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 06:25:38AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R" Micha Berger wrote: >> Using rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq. We don't >> which which to hold, so... And even then, not always; because >> there are such chumeros in derabbanans, where the rule of >> safeiq would be lehaqeil. > Safeiq "rather than" pesaq?? Can the two be differentiated? Isn't psak > *based* on safek, trying to figure out where Truth resides? Not safeiq rather than pesaq, "rules of safeiq rather than those of pesaq". More reliance on safeiq deOraisa lehachmir, safeiq derabbanan lequlah -- unless efshar levareir / it's easy enough to be machmir. Of course, a baal nefesh may have a different definition of "easy enough". As opposed to looking to which shitah is stated by the gadol bekhochmah uveminyan (minyan rabbanim, rav with bigger following [looking at the Rambam or the Rosh...]), the logic of the sevara behind each possible pesaq, looking to see which pesaq was apparently accepted for how long and how broadly, hefsed meruba, kavod haberios... You know, the rules of pesaq. These latter kind of rules tend to be invoked less often than in the past. I think it comes from the Gra's position on the comparative unreality of pesaq after Rav Ashi and Ravina, taking the Rambam's "sof hora'ah" quite literally. Picked up by the Soloveitchiks, and with the popularity of Brisk among those who pasqen today... Add to that the whole concept of lomdus. Whether Brisker or other derakhim. When you value sevara much more than the other factors posqim have to balance, and you learn how to explain the sevara of all sides of a machloqes... There are fewer times the remaining rules of pesaq rise to the level of giving a clear answer. My latter two paragraphs feed into: > As I see it, it's not that we have a lack of *faith* in psak, but that > we're so confused about how it works. And especially, how it works nowadays > when there's no Sanhedrin. But we seem to disagree mostly on description rather than content: > And it carries through to psak too. Can I really ignore the minority > opinion? Without a Sanhedrin to actually discuss and vote, how can I be > sure that the other camp is wrong? ... "How can I be sure" IS a lack of faith in our ability to pasqen, as I would use the terms. Maybe the insecurity comes from a lack of surity we know how to do it right. I would still call it a lack of faith. If you don't think pesaq can be done the way the Rif, the Rambam, the Tur, the SA, the Levush, etc... did, that their precedent doesn't tell you how to decide which of the eilu va'eilu should become halakhah lemaaseh, that lack of faith in how to do pesaq has scary implications. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:19:21 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:19:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] action or results? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727201921.GD12492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:48:25AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > There are four identical quadruplets brothers, Robert, Simon, Larry and > Judah. Robert , Larry and Simon are all asymptomatic carriers of the > corona virus but Judah is not... > They all go outside to identical public events where their identities are > not known. Robert infects... > What shows up on each brothers' permanent record card in shamayim? Is > it multidimensional? Rachmana liba ba'i. Their records show each one's lack of concern for other's safety. Consequences, if they are correlated at all and some other aspect of hashgachah doesn't overwhelm this rule, megalgelim chov al yedei chayav. Which implies that who gets whom sick would at most be *indicative* of guilt for this or other deeds, not the actual thing he is guilty of. A person isn't judged for the results of their actions, or even for their actions themselves. (So, I'm denying both sides of the question in the subject line.) A person is judged "ba'asher hu sham" -- what kind of changes those decisions and actions made in themselves. I would take it for granted it's multidimensional. The person's "permanent record card" is their own soul. And the effects of their actions can improve one thing about the soul while damaging something else about it. A comparatively easy example is tact. a person can make a person that makes them more truthful, but gains that Emes at the expense of their drive for Shalom. And even without the previous paragraphs, Hashem isn't a Vatra -- the person will get the Tov that a more Emesdik soul has a beis qibbul for, and get less of the Tov that comes with losing some passion for Shalom. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:00:57 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200727210057.GF12492@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: >> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when >> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed >> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as >> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the >> same Sha'tz conclude what he started? > I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. I called it an office, not the occupent. But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same idea. I have a theory why: I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a *shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 13:54:22 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:54:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] God's existence In-Reply-To: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> References: <7E0F6382-1C65-4DA3-A2BD-0615D3185B2C@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20200727205422.GE12492@aishdas.org> RDR mentioned the Kuzari before I found the time to reply. I think what changed was in the discipline of philosophy. In the days of the rishonim, Philosophy was itself a kind of religion. Look at the opening paragraphs of ch. 1 of the Kuzari -- the king's survey includes a Philosopher (1:1), a Muslim, a Christian, and then the chaver. A Jewish Philosopher was a Scholasticist. Such that Rihal, even though the Kuzari is a book of philosophy as we now use the term, saw himself as anti-Philosophy. Then came the scientific method and people realizing the power and limitations of testing things empirically. The tensions between the Empiricists, who trusted these methods, and the Idealists, who wanted all knowledge to be as sound as Math, coming from self-evident postulates. And then the Kantian Revolution through to Existentialism and now Post-Modernism, etc... Philosophy less based on a confidence of being able to prove what's out there and more focused on describing the world as experienced. I argued here a few years back that this is what drove the popularity of universal hashgachah peratis. It's less a break from how rishonim understood HP than looking at a different topic. To the rishonim, a discussion of HP is all about its contrast to nature, randomness, bechirah chofshi, etc... Nowadays, the discussion of HP is about what it is we have bitachon in, how much hishatadlus do we need to invest given that what happens is decided by hashgachah... R Yehudah haLevi had a lack of faith in the idea that we can decisively prove that's really out there. That's for Greeks, who lack the more sure source of data -- mesorah. (1:13, 1:63) That mesorah part isn't very Modern in terms of the discipline of philosophy, but not believing we can ever really prove anything... Well, take this quote from 1:13: "Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved." Sounds downright Post-Modern! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Jul 28 19:19:28 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 22:19:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why did Chazal cancel shiva bc of Yom tov Message-ID: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> Many have recently written how they have missed the full traditional comforting process of shiva due to corona restrictions. That has reawakened in me the question of why did Chazal cancel shiva because of Yom tov? If the catharsis and process of shiva is so comforting and desirable for mourners, why did they take that away because of YT and not simply postpone till after YT. It's hard to say that after YT the shiva experience w be no longer necessary or needed. I saw someone suggest that "The souls of those who passed away now with abbreviated burials and shivas were so pure they ascended directly to heaven and did not require traditional mourning rituals." That is hard to hear because shiva (and YT cancelling shiva) is a rabbinic creation. Suggestions? Mordechai Cohen macohen613 at gmail.com From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Jul 29 03:10:38 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:10:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why did Chazal cancel shiva bc of Yom tov In-Reply-To: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> References: <026301d6654e$b0141950$103c4bf0$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: That has reawakened in me the question of why did Chazal cancel shiva because of Yom tov? ====================================== As one who sat shiva at the cemetery on erev Pesach, I tried to keep in mind R'YBS's insight into true simcha as being lfnai hashem (which is what we're supposed to be on shalosh regalim). Seeing it through HKB"H's eyes it's all good (we are human and so don't experience it as such). So: She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, which will allow us all to see more clearly 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 micha at aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:37 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 11:02:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Crazy Snakes and Dogs Message-ID: <20200730150237.GA14405@aishdas.org> We repeatedly discussed RYBS's statement that toothpaste is not ra'ui la'akhilas kelev and therefore doesn't need a hekhsher to be KLP. Not where I intended to go, but I should note that we never discussed the actual core issue -- the limits of the principle of achshevei. Since toothpaste is flavored, one could argue it does apply. RMF (IG OC 2:92), ROY (YD 2:60), the Tzitz Eliezer (10:25), says it does not apply when the flavored item isn't being eaten for the sake of the flavor. Excluding medicine -- and the same argument applies to toothpaste. The CI (OC 116:8) limits achshevei to spoiled chameitz, and not to mixtures containing chameitz. The "only" machmir about applying achshevei to medicines that I know of is the She'agas Aryeh (75). Now, back to the topic I did intent to post about.... So, the story goes (version taken from R Chaim Jachter at https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/cosmetics-and-toiletries-for-pesach-part-three-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter ): A charming anecdote that occurred in Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's Shiur at Yeshiva University in the 1970's (reported by Rav Yosef Adler and many others) is often cited in support of the common practice to be lenient. The Rav stated in Shiur that toothpaste is not Ra'ui Liachilat Kelev (unfit for canine consumption) and thus one is permitted to consume it on Pesach even if it contains Chametz. The next day in Shiur a student raised his hand and explained that he conducted an "experiment" the night before. He related that he placed toothpaste in his dog's feeding bowl to see if his dog would eat it -- and indeed, the dog ate the toothpaste!! Rav Soloveitchik simply responded, "Your dog is crazy." This story illustrates the ruling that we cited last week from Rav Soloveitchik that the standards of edibility are not determined by aberrant behavior. R Pesach Sommer recently found Tosefta Terumos 7:13, which is more famously available on Chullin 49b. It /has/ to be what RYBS was thinking of. The gemara says: Detanya: 5 [liquids] do not have [the prohibition] of gilui: brine, vinegar, oil, honey and fish gravy. Rabbi Shimon says: I saw a snake drink fish brine in Tzidon! They said to him: That [snake] was a shetaya, and one doesn't bring a proof from shotim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness. Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From hanktopas at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 20:29:43 2020 From: hanktopas at gmail.com (Henry Topas) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 23:29:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote: >> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when >> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed >> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as >> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the >> same Sha'tz conclude what he started? > I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person. I called it an office, not the occupent. But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same idea. I have a theory why: I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a *shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post! -Micha Shavua Tov, Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue for Kaddish Shalem? Thank you and Kol Tuv, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 02:36:36 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 12:36:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Henry Topas wrote: > > Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach > of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for > Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or > officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that > reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue > for Kaddish Shalem? What you describe is nothing I've found in the written Poskim. Where I grew up (various Yekkishe Kehiloth) the Ovel was "off the hook" when Hallel was recited. I see this being done in Yeshivishe minyonim, seemingly to "prevent" the Ovel from being Shatz for Hallel. (Also not recorded, AFAIK, except during Shiva.) So, my guess is, that since the Ovel wants to say as many Kadieshim as possible he "gets back the Omud" after Hallel - giving him one more Kaddish. This has no bearing on our discussion, it's a question (and answer) on a recent "Minhag/Hanhogo". Kol Tuv - Danny From emteitz at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 14:06:35 2020 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 17:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah Message-ID: Henry Topas wrote: However one looks at the office of shat"z, there is a difference between chazaras hashat"z and the rest of davening. For everything else, he is essentially a pacer, keeping everyone at the same point in davening, and the leader, in terms of kaddish and borchu. For the amidah, he is definitely a shaliach, whose role it is to be motzi those who cannot themselves daven. It would be possible theoretically not to have a shat"z, having all daven together, and then having one person who, at the appropriate times, would say kaddish and borchu. Chazaras hashat"z, however, must obviously have a shat"z. On days when Hallel is said, it is not a part of chazaras hashat"z; it is, in essence said *during *the chazara, after which the chazara is completed by saying kaddish shalem, which *is* a part of the chazara. (Hallel is in the same category as slichos on fast days, which was originally said during the shat"z's saying the bracha of Slach lanu. Then, too, I believe that someone other than the shat'"z could have led the slichos while the shat"z remained at the amud.) That the aveil should not lead Hallel, but should return for the kaddish because it is a part of the Amidah, is spelled out in the Mishna Brura (581:7). This leads to questioning the practice, when there is more than one aveil, of switching ba'alei tfila at Ashrei-Uva l'Tzion. There are some who object to the practice for that very reason, but apparently it is in the same category as allowing kaddish to be said by more than one person at a time: a concession to darkei shalom in a highly emotional setting. That the aveil not lead Hallel is the opinion of the overwhelming majority. The Mishna Brura loc.cit. brings the apparent opinion of the GR"A who goes even further, that the aveil not lead the entire Shacharis. The MB also cites, in the Biur Halacha in Siman 132, that there are those who bar the aveil from the amud on any day, other than erev Yom Kippur, that Lamnatzeiach is not said -- and does not limit it just to Shacharis on those days. (This is the minhag in my community.) Incidentally, in parts of Europe and in some shuls in EY, there is no shat"z for psukei d'zimra. The amud is unmanned until Yishtabach. If no one need be there, then certainly where there is one, there is no problem in replacing him for Yishtabach. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolberg at yebo.co.za Wed Aug 5 08:00:26 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 17:00:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Censorship in Aruch HaShulchan Message-ID: <014701d66b39$296ebf40$7c4c3dc0$@yebo.co.za> In 39:3, the AH writes: ger (beyamim kadmonim). This was obviously added for the gov censor, similar to Aruch HaShulchan ChM 388:7. Why do we not find the same in MB? Actually, AH OC was written after the same section in MB. Was the political climate in Novardok and Radin so different? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 10 00:52:25 2020 From: eliturkel at mail.gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:52:25 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potato chips and french fries Message-ID: A nice article on the various opinions of bishul akum for french fries and potato chips https://vosizneias.com/2020/08/10/chareidi-potato-chips-versus-regular-chips/ -- Eli Turkel From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 13:42:35 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:42:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Chaim Brisker on his 102nd Yahrzeit Message-ID: <20200811204234.GA9159@aishdas.org> R Elinatan Kupferburg posted this today on Facebook, lekhavod RCB's 102nd yahrzeit (21 Av). Translitarations mine, "q"s and all. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Today is the yahrzeit of [Maran shel kol Benei Yisrael, Rabbeinu Chaim haLevi,] R. Chaim Soloveitchik. It is far beyond this post, or this site, to capture any of the towering significance of Rabbeinu. For that, there's only one thing to do. You have to learn R. Chaim. You sit for hours poring over a sugya without R. Chaim, only to open the sefer and have R. Chaim, with his penetrating, elegant brilliance guide you through the depths of the sea of Talmud. It's as if you were overhearing snippets of a conversation without knowing the topic and then someone revealed it to you and now everything you heard suddenly falls into place. But I do want to make a couple of points about R. Chaim's legacy. Perhaps the most common metonym used to describe or exemplify what is referred to as "the Brisker method," is the cheftza/gavra distinction, often compared to the in rem/in personam legal distinction, though the two are not entirely analogous. It's part of a broader tendency to describe or teach "the Brisker method" by means of a few templatic distinctions: internal/external, intrinsic/accidental, action/result and so on, and has recently been reinforced by books or pamphlets which attempt to do the same. Unfortunately, not only are these gross simplifications and reductions, they entirely obscure what R. Chaim was actually doing, replace it with a different method of study (albeit one that is more prominent in some of his students, notably R. Elchonon Wasserman) and thereby miss his genius. The halakhic discourse, the lomdus, that pervades the Brisk Yeshiva that grew out of the study group around his son R. Velvel (the Brisker Rav) or the other yeshivas it birthed (including BMG), is dissimilar to this perception. 1. The words [cheftza] and [gavra] do not ever appear anywhere in the same piece in [Chiddushei Rabbeinu Chaim haLevi]!! Yes, really. (Except once in [Mekhilah 22:17,] when [gavra] is a quote from the Gemara, i.e. [hahu gavra]). There's a very good reason for that. Because making templatic distinctions is entirely different than what R. Chaim was doing. R. Chaim was elucidating the concepts that underlie and inform halakhic discourse. What is nature of a legal document? What type of obligation is the command is rid chametz? How does a blemish render an animal unfit for sacrifice? Under which mitzva is this prohibition included? R. Chaim's success is defined by precision of conceptual description, which is opposed to templatic rigidity. The only time that [gavra / cheftza] is actually widely used is in Nedarim 2b, in the distinction between vows and oaths, since there the distinction literally is the locus of the prohibition (vows designate an object as forbidden, oaths compel a person to act in a certain way). Often his discussion is not remotely similar to any of the popular "chakiras." For example, the section of the MT that gets the most attention in R. Chaim is the recondite [Hilkhos Tum'as Meis,] in which the pedestrian templates fail. Distinction is a helpful tool in the art of clarity and the halakhic world is composed of human agents and non-human objects, so parts of his discourse may approximate the infamous [gavra / cheftza] but it is by no means central or representative. To be fair, the templatic perception captures certain aspects of some of his chiddushim, and it does communicate the notion of underlying dyadic conceptual distinctions, but I wonder about its ultimate efficacy. 2. The distinctions that approximate [gavra / cheftza] are much older than R. Chaim. Just to give a few examples: - Rivash (Shut 98) extends the gemara's analysis in Nedarim to all prohibitions. - Rid (Eiruvin 48a) uses it describe the prohibition of transporting an object 4 amos in the public domain on Shabbos. - Chasam Sofer (Chullin 115b) uses it to distinguish different types of prohibitions. - Beis Halevi (Shut 3:51 - R. Chaim's father) uses it to explain the nature of the mitzva to eat korbanos. In a broader sense, this type of analysis can be found most acutely in (to give a few examples, moving backwords) Minchas Chinuch, R. Akiva Eiger, the works of R. Aryeh Leib Heller and R. Yaakov Lorberbaum, Peri Megadim, and, most strikingly, by R. Judah Rosanes, whose [Mishneh laMelekh] and [Parashas Derakhim,] two centuries ahead of their time, prefigured much of the Brisker Torah. Of course, the Gemara and Rishonim (Rashi and Meiri come to mind) are not absent of this lomdus either. A recent terminological case from Daf Yomi: take the discussion about perforating an old hole in a wine barrel on Shabbos 146b, where Rashi describes the halakhic crux as whether or not [paqa sheim 'pesach' mineih.] 3. R. Chaim did a lot of things. - He tightened a terminology. - He sharpened the analysis of halakhic concepts. - He displayed a new way of visualizing a sugya and working through it. - He identified the conceptual systematization that forms the substructure of the Mishneh Torah. - He developed a proto-philosophy of halakhic hermeneutics. - He opened the door for gaonim like R. Shimon Shkop to take analysis in a different direction. - By shifting the backdrop from practical halakha to halakha itself, he enabled us to see halakhic concepts not only as useful for determining practice, but as a way through which to view and interact with the world. Each of these deserves a sustained, independent analysis to identify the existing terminologies and approaches that R. Chaim drew on, and the extent of his own innovative prowess. Most powerfully though, he forever changed the halakhic consciousness. Conceptual analysis is now an inexorable part of the talmudic arsenal. Any advanced student of traditional Gemara who sits down to learn has been sensitized to the possibility of a conceptual distinction at play, even if they have no intention of using what they consider "the Brisker method." For some, R. Chaim's thought is so overwhelming that one can never look at Gemara differently again. But I might venture to say that its power lies in the recognition that even if someone does not walk down the path R. Chaim cleared, then that is precisely what they are doing: not learning like R. Chaim. R. Chaim fundamentally defined the contours of halakhic thought, and we are all in his debt. [Ki gadol sheim avinu beYisrael, ve'or Toraso male'ah teiveil -- misof ha'olam ad sofo mamash, umi zeh milomedei Sorah bedoreinu asher lo zarach alav or shimsho venogah Soraso.] From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Aug 11 14:37:14 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:37:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin Message-ID: If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? 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 zev at sero.name Wed Aug 12 08:07:36 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:07:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/8/20 5:37 pm, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another?s birchat hanehenin > and then did not eat, is it a bracha l?vatala for him? I don't see how it can be. The bracha had effect for the person who said it, so it was not wasted. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:23:55 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:23:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200812202354.GA10738@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 09:37:14PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin > and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? Berakhah levatalah sounds like a description of the "cheftza" of the berakhah. Not gavra-specific. And what would be levatalah, the mevoreikh's kavvanah to be motzi him? Safeiq berakhos lehaqeil is sometimes explained as safeiq deOraisa lechumerah where the deOraisa is sheim Hashem lashav. Along those lines, one could theorize that as long as the sheim wasn't said lashav, it's not a berakhah levatalah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals http://www.aishdas.org/asp is not as important as Author: Widen Your Tent what you become by achieving your goals. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Henry David Thoreau From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Sun Aug 16 08:51:59 2020 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 11:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Business with an Akum Message-ID: One is not permitted to do any kind of business with an Akum (idol-worshipper) on the day of their festival (nor 3 days prior in the Land of Israel) - Rambam Hil. Avodah Zara Ch. 9, Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 148.1. Question - Today, if I know a shop owner is a religious Xian, am I allowed to shop there on Sunday? Or if I know he is a religious Hindu, do I need to mark my calendar with all of the Hindu festivals and avoid his shop on those days? What about a traditional Chinese person on Chinese New Year? Or a Catholic on All Souls Day? If so, is there any halachic literature that lists all of the dates currently forbidden? (I?m also not allowed to sell to him on his holidays, and if I do (in error), I?m not allowed to enjoy the profits of that sale.) Alexander Seinfeld From joelirarich at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 03:47:26 2020 From: joelirarich at gmail.com (Joel Rich) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 06:47:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat hamazon Message-ID: <8FD081BF-3F42-460C-BE16-588F69071B09@gmail.com> A group of people are having Shabbos meal together in the dining room. They all get up to clear the main course dishes and bring them into the kitchen. The dessert flatware and glasses remain on the table Must they say birchat hamazon immediately upon return to the table? Kt Joel rich From micha at aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 09:00:38 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 12:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re'eih vs Shema Message-ID: <20200816160038.GA25978@aishdas.org> Because we say the words from Va'eschanan multiple times a day, I have heard (pun intended, sadly) a lot about shema when it means something more than the stimulation of neurons in my inner ear. Like the English word "listen", "shema" connotes paying attention, obeying ("eiqev asher shamata beQoli"), etc... So, what do we get from the use of "re'eih", as in the title of this week's parashah? In the past couple of days, I cam up with a theory about the difference between shemi'ah and re'iyah, but want to vet it with the chevrah. Shema introduces a theological fact we can only accept in the abstract. We don't even fully understand how One, Indivisible and Unique Hashem is. We are told to accept ol malkhus Shamayim on this basis, but the fact itself is one we can apprehend, not experience. Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite different than an abstract truth. (This seems to be consistent with "ein domeh shemi'ah lere'iyah". "Re'iyah" is something I can know first-hand.) Ta chazi in the bavli seems to also fit this pattern: Berakhos 58a: Rav Sheishes says to a min, "ta chazi" that I am brighter than you, proceding to show he figured out when the king would come. But then, the point was made at the beginning ot the story that R Sheishes was blind, so ht emay have been using the phrase pointed. Eiruvin 6b: ta chazi that the gates of Neharda'ah couldn't be locked. (And thus Shemu'el doesn't require they be locked in order to permit carrying.) Etc... All cases of "go and check for yourself". Nothing at all like "ta shema", which introduces learning a teaching. And of course "puq chazi". But in the Yerushalmi and the Zohar, "ta chazi" is used the way "ta shema" is in Bavel. So, maybe I am just reading too much into Bavli idiom. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a http://www.aishdas.org/asp person is to remain asleep and untamed." Author: Widen Your Tent - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From kbloom at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 14:30:40 2020 From: kbloom at gmail.com (Ken Bloom) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:30:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? Message-ID: Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Aug 17 15:37:49 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 22:37:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Dialectics? Message-ID: An important caveat (IMHO) from R' A Lebowitz to a number of shiurim from diverse speakers: Me-....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y, and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y? R' AL-I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just a helpful way to contextualize the issues I'm still thinking there's another paradigm shift coming, interested in hearing from others. 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 doniels at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 04:55:45 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:55:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > From: "Rich, Joel" > If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him? I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3 (excuse the Hebrew for the ????? crowd) - translation from Sefaria (after removing a Chumra not in the original): ????? ????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ?????????, ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ?????????????, ???? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???????. "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi shebeirach [a blessing for those who fast on these days] and you intended to fast, this is sufficient, and no other form of acceptance is needed. " ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query. Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of getting the best of both worlds. Kol Tuv - Danny From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Aug 18 05:43:47 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:43:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????, ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query. Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of getting the best of both worlds. ============================================== When I learned this with my chavruta a few months back my comment was - I'd love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - machshava balma (random thought?) which has no halachic significance, amira (specific oral articulation) which is completely binding and amen/specific machshava(really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat indeterminate (not welcome in a brisker world?) 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 doniels at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 05:03:54 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:03:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Re'eih vs Shema In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMB reminded me of a vort I heard and said over at this week's Shabbos table. The opening word of the Sedra - Re'eih - is seemingly superfluous. "I present you today with [the ability to choose between] blessing or curse". What does "Look! I present you...." add? The answer was exactly as RMB proposed: > Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the > world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite > different than an abstract truth. We need to look around and see how choice and its consequences are built into the creation. Kol Tuv - Danny From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Aug 18 05:54:11 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 08:54:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. looking for sources and current custom Message-ID: <015401d6755e$aba2ff10$02e8fd30$@touchlogic.com> #! ... May a women uncover her hair in private? Halachah addresses public, semipublic, and private settings: Public: The Torah states that a woman must completely cover her hair in a public place. Some opinions state that under a tefach (a handbreadth, about three inches total) of hair may show. Semipublic: In a semipublic place, one opinion states that even if men are not usually found there, a married woman must cover her hair. When a woman covers her hair, this brings much blessing into the home Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory...." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required." Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? #2 https://www.yoatzot.org/questions-and-answers/1910/ Question: Does a woman have to cover her hair in front of her brothers? Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the presence of your father, husband and son. Where it is customary and not considered offensive, a woman may uncover her hair in front of her brother in the privacy of her own home. Is this leniency known/relied upon? Is this what people are doing out there today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 17:51:37 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:51:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200819005137.GB6547@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 02:55:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote: > I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3... > "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday > following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi > shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient... > "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you > may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself." > This last line is -- in my mind -- parallel to your query. > Seems that answering Amen -- even with intention -- is one way of > getting the best of both worlds. I think the best of both worlds may only because you said amein to blessing the fasters, and not "me too" to someone's pledge to fast. There is mental acceptance during a related verbal act. Not a verbal acceptance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but the lighting of a fire. Author: Widen Your Tent - W.B. Yeats - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 17:48:02 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:48:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Dialectics? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200819004802.GA6547@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:37:49PM +0000, Joel Rich wrote: > Me- >> ....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I >> just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y, >> and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean >> choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y? > R' AL[ebowitz]- >> I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just >> a helpful way to contextualize the issues When discussing Brisker vs Telzher derakhim, everyone focuses on "Vus?" vs "Fahr vus?" (What? vs Why?) But another major different is R' Shimon's heavy use of the concept of hitztarfus -- the idea that a halakhah can be caused by the convergence of multiple factors. >From Widen Your Tent (by me), sec. 6.3: But there is a second distinction: Rav Chaim would explain an apparent contradiction by finding "the chiluk," the distinction between two cases that we initially thought ought to be the same, or the distinction between the viewpoints in two sides of a dispute. Rav Chaim's is a reductionist approach to analyzing a topic; it teaches how to understand something by identifying and understanding each of its parts. This methodology is suited for identifying "the cause" of a law. Rav Shimon also invokes hitztarfus, fusion or connectedness. It allows us to better ask, once we know the parts, how do they combine and interact to produce the given result? From this vantage point, rather than looking for a single cause, we can see that a given ruling can come from the way in which many halachic causes combine. Suppose we were tasked to do analysis to find out why some accident happened. For example: Why did David hurt his foot? Because a paint can fell on it. Why did the can fall? Because someone else accidentally knocked it off its shelf. Why did he knock it off the shelf? Because his nose itched, and he lifted his hand to scratch it, and also because the shelf wasn't on its brackets correctly and wobbled a bit. However, it's equally true that he hurt his foot because even though he usually wears iron-toed hiking boots, he chose not to wear them that that day. And why did he not wear his boots? Because when he was looking for something to put on his feet, someone else had turned on the light in another room, which changed his train of thought. And so on. Every event has many causes, each of which in turn has its own many causes. Rarely does an event only have one cause. We get used to identifying "the cause" of something. I would instead suggest that every event is like "the perfect storm"; each one has combinations of factors that come to a head at the same point. Similarly, Rav Shimon saw no reason to assume that it takes one cause to create an obligation or prohibition, rather than a combination of them. Which I then relate to R Shimon's approach to chessed as a widening of one's "ani" to include others. (The way we naturally have little problem giving to our children, because in a sense, they're "us".) I also use the difference between the focus on reductionism vs interconnectedness to explain a structural difference between Aristo's books and the Mishnah. WHich may be more relevant to the point: This difference between Semitic and Yefetic perspectives can be seen by contrasting the style of Aristotle with that of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Aristotle catalogues. He divides a subject into subtopics, and those subtopics even further, until one is down to the individual fact. Greek thought was focused on reductionism. To understand a phenomenon, break it down into smaller pieces and try to understand each piece. This is typical of the Yefetic perspective. That reductionism stands in contrast to the way Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi redacted the first Mishnah. The beginning of all of Mishnah could have said outright that Rabbi Eliezer ruled that the time for saying the evening Shema is from sunset and for the first third of the night. This is the way United States legal codes are arranged divided and subdivided into law, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, clauses, and items, with an effort to minimize cross-references. Instead the first Mishnah makes its point by invoking the priesthood, purity, and the night shifts in the Temple, "from the time Kohanim [who went to the mikvah to be purified during the prior day] may enter to eat their terumah until the end of the first shift." It describes the start and end times for the mitzvah using referents that one wouldn't normally assume when starting study. This is not to confuse the issue or needlessly close study from non-initiates, but because the key to understanding one mitzvah necessarily includes its connections to everything else. The proper time to say Shema cannot be understood without that context. The task Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi set out to accomplish with the Mishnah was not to explain the rationales of the halachah, and therefore the Mishnah spells out this holistic understanding. We are left not knowing why the rules of when Kohanim who needed the mikvah may eat terumah or the time the first shift in the Beis Hamikdash ended add meaning to the time span in which the nighttime Shema may be said. But the Mishnah does record the law in memorizable form, and apparently that includes helping us remember the halachah by association to the other halachos it relates to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur http://www.aishdas.org/asp with the proper intent than to fast on Yom Author: Widen Your Tent Kippur with that intent. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 12:42:04 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Limits of Parshanut Message-ID: <20200820194204.GA9194@aishdas.org> Parshanut doesn't have rules of pesaq. Nothing ever ends an opinion (lifsoq) once it is derived. So, those 98 ways become 9,604 ways, and then 941,192 ways as each interpretation gets its 98 interpretations. And then we have cases where those who pursue peshat -- Rashbam, IE, most famously -- give a peshat in the pasuq which they acknowledge runs against Chazal. But they feel Chazal weren't working bederekh peshat. (And the Rashbam is clear that he doesn't believe Chazal were wrong, or that anything he says about the pasuq has halachic signicance. E.g. see his comments on "vayhi erev, vayhi boqer".) But, procedurally, there still has to be rules for what kind of interpretation is valid and what aren't. I cannot believe that people can just make stuff up, and if fits a linguistic oddity of the text or a wording in some source of Chazal it's necessarily Torah. I don't know what the limits are. All I know is the limits of my own comfort zone. *To me*, "toras Hashem temimah" means that if I have a theory of how to understand something aggadic -- theology, mussar or parshanut -- it must be driven by material internal to the existing body Torah. If I am forced to an an entirely new understanding that no one proposed before to answer a scientific question, I would prefer leaving the question tabled, teiqu, than to run with this kind of innovation. To me, following a tendency I heard around YU from R YB Soloveitchik's students (my own rebbe, R Dovid, was yet more conservative), this is related to the difference between chiddush and shinui. "There is no beis medrash without chiddush" because learning Torah means extrapolating new points from the existing data. Extrapolation from and interpolation between existing Torah "data points" is chiddush. Shinui is innovation driven by something other than Torah. I am not sure if RYBS would say that in the context of parshanut in particular or not. As I said, as this point we're only discussing the not-that-relevant topic of "Micha's comfort zone". Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... http://www.aishdas.org/asp ... but you're the pilot. Author: Widen Your Tent - R' Zelig Pliskin - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 13:27:15 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:27:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vaccine Trials in Halakhah Message-ID: <20200820202715.GA32236@aishdas.org> Given the need for CoVID-19 vaccine challenge trials, I heard a number of podcasts on the topics of testing or volunteering to be a test subject for an experimental cure. But, it's hard to get people who are reading an email digest to take time for an audio. So, here's a link to something in text. https://thelehrhaus.com/timely-thoughts/signing-up-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-trial Here's the halachic section of the paper, minus all set-up and general ethics discussion. Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; http://www.aishdas.org/asp Experience comes from bad decisions. Author: Widen Your Tent - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF The Lehrhaus Signing Up for a COVID-19 Vaccine Trial By Sharon Galper Grossman and Shamai Grossman August 18, 2020 ... Undergoing Dangerous Medical Procedures in Halakhah Halakhah's approach to dangerous medical procedures begins with Avodah Zara 27b, which permits a hayei sha'ah - a sick individual with a limited time to live - to seek the care of a pagan doctor, because while we worry that a Jew-hating doctor might kill the Jewish patient, he might also effect a long-term cure. However, if the sick individual is unlikely to die, he may not turn to the pagan. The Gemara's explanation as to why we permit the hayei sha'ah to risk his brief remaining time alive is, "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" - we are not concerned about a risk to a short life because the pagan doctor might cure him. The Gemara derives this principle from the dilemma of the four lepers in II Kings 7:3-8. Banished from their city, which was struck by famine, they faced starvation. They saw a camp of Arameans possessing food, and were confronted by the following dilemma. If they were to enter the camp, the Arameans might kill them, yet they might feed them. Preferring possible immediate death from capture to certain subsequent death from starvation, the lepers entered the camp. There they discovered an abundance of food and survived. Tosafot (s.v. le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan) questions the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan." Doesn't Yoma 65a's permission to move stones on Shabbat to search for a hayei sha'ah buried underneath the rubble imply that we value even the briefest survival? Tosafot answers that in both cases we act in the best interest of the patient, rejecting certain death for an uncertainty that might prolong life. Thus, in Avodah Zarah, we disregard hayei sha'ah because otherwise the patient will surely die. In Yoma, we desecrate Shabbat for the hayei sha'ah because if we do not remove the stones, he will also certainly die. Based on Avodah Zara 27b and the story of the lepers, Shulhan Arukh Yoreh De'ah 155:1 codifies the principal "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan," permitting a hayei sha'ah to incur the risk of death at the hands of a pagan doctor in the hope of a long-term cure. Numerous modern poskim[7] rule that a hayei sha'ah may undergo a risky medical procedure if it offers the chance of a long-term cure. Shevut Ya'akov 3:75 explains, "Since the patient will certainly die, we push off the certainty of death and opt for the possibility of cure." One source, however, seems to prohibit the hayei sha'ah from undergoing dangerous medical treatment. Sefer Hasidim 467 describes a special herb remedy with the potential to kill or cure within days of use, accusing the women who prepared it of shortening the lives of their patients. One might interpret his denunciation as a rejection of the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan." Orhot Hayyim, Orah Hayyim 328:10 dismisses this interpretation, explaining that Sefer Hasidim only prohibits the risky remedy because there is an alternative safe treatment. He argues that in the absence of an effective alternative even Sefer Hasidim would accept the risk. Applied to our case ,the absence of an effective cure for COVID-19 might justify engaging in a risky process to find a cure. Does the principle "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" permit healthy volunteers like Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial that injects half of the participants with a vaccine of uncertain benefit, exposing them to a lethal virus? To answer this question, we must determine if hayei sha'ah applies to healthy volunteers who do not face the risk of immediate death, the level of medical risk one may incur to achieve hayei olam (long-term cure), and the level of benefit required to justify the assumption of such risk. In addition, we must establish whether the volunteers may endanger themselves, in the absence of any personal gain, purely for the benefit of others, and whether this principle applies to experimental therapies where the benefit of treatment is unclear. Finally, if Halakhah permits participation, is one obligated to volunteer? Defining Hayei Sha'ah The discussion permitting dangerous medical treatment assumed that the individual had the status of hayei sha'ah - a terminal illness with a limited time to live. Can we interpret hayei sha'ah more broadly, and can we apply this understanding to human vaccine challenge trials involving healthy volunteers? Rishonim and early Aharonim do not define hayei sha'ah precisely. Their interpretation of the term ranges from a life expectancy as short as one to two days to longer than a year (see Table 1). Though these poskim debate the exact duration of life required to satisfy the halakhic definition of hayei sha'ah, they view a hayei sha'ah as an individual with an illness that compromises his life expectancy. At first glance, these poskim would not classify Sam, a healthy young volunteer, as a hayei sha'ah. However, Tiferet Yisrael Yoma, Yakhin 8:3, expands the definition, permitting a healthy individual to undergo smallpox vaccination, which causes death in one in 1,000 individuals, to attain long-term immunity. He dismisses the small risk of immediate death from vaccination so as to prevent future lethal infections and broadens the definition of hayei sha'ah to include situations where the cause of death is not present, but is only a statistical possibility. He bases this ruling on Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which, citing the Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, obligates a person to place himself in a possible danger to save his friend from a certain danger. So for example, if someone sees his friend drowning in the sea, he must jump in to save him though he risks drowning during his attempted rescue. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if a bystander is obligated to incur possible risk to rescue his drowning friend from a possible danger, a healthy individual may accept possible immediate peril to save himself from a possible future danger. Rabbi J.D. Bleich applies Tiferet Yisrael's definition of hayei sha'ah to healthy carriers of the BRCA mutation who act to reduce their high risk of cancer by opting for prophylactic surgery.[8] Though the cancer has not yet developed, they may incur the immediate risk of surgery to increase their life expectancy.[9] Even if we consider a genetic predisposition or a statistical probability a present danger, it is unlikely that unafflicted carriers of such a mutation will die within twelve months. By permitting a healthy individual to assume a one in 1,000 risk of immediate death to prevent a future lethal smallpox infection, Tiferet Yisrael suggests that Halakhah recognizes the importance of disease prevention, equating it with treatments for active life-threatening disease. His halakhic analysis and assessment might permit a healthy volunteer such as Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial to achieve immunity from COVID-19. However, such a trial involves substantial risk without proven benefits. In addition, because Tiferet Yisrael bases his position on the Yerushalmi which obligates an individual to endanger himself to save someone who faces certain danger, Tiferet Yisrael might even allow Sam to participate in the absence of any personal benefit, for pure altruism to save humanity. Defining a Permissible Level of Risk Aharonim debate the exact level of risk the hayei sha'ah may incur. Ahiezer 2:16:6 cites Mishnat Hakhamim to permit a dangerous treatment for a safek shakul - a risk of death less than or equal to 50%. If the risk of death exceeds 50%, the hayei sha'ah may not receive the treatment. This is also the opinion of Tzitz Elieze r 10:25:5:5. If the majority of physicians endorse treatment, Ahiezer permits a risk greater than 50% and does not define the upper limit of permitted risk. Because any COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial would receive the prior approval of an overseeing body of physicians, Ahiezer might permit participation for a risk higher than 50%. Beit David Yoreh De'ah II:340 permits a hayei sha'ah to receive a treatment that causes death in 999 out of 1,000 patients. In 1961, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58, permitted a treatment in which the odds were more than 50% that it would cause death. However, in 1972 (Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 3:36), he modified his position, permitting only a safek shakul. He concludes that a hayei sha'ah who seeks medical treatment with a greater than 50% risk of death may rely on the more lenient position of Ahiezer and receive the dangerous therapy. How does Sam's participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial compare to the risks that these poskim cite? They address situations where the person is terminally ill and faces imminent death, but do not define the level of risk a healthy individual may incur. However, Tiferet Yisrael permits a healthy individual to undergo vaccination against smallpox with a risk of death of one in 1,000. For all adults age 20-29 infected with COVID-19, including those with comorbidities, virologists estimate a 1.1% risk of complications requiring hospitalization and 0.03% risk of death,[10] an approximation that might either overestimate or underestimate Sam's true risk. Sam, who suffers no comorbidities, might be at the low end of the participation risk. Furthermore, because Sam lives in an area with a large number of COVID-19 cases, he is already at high risk of infection; participation only minimally increases this. Should he become infected, he will receive state-of-the-art care, which might reduce his complications. In addition, if researchers identify an effective treatment, that treatment would further diminish his participation risk. With appropriate risk minimization (e.g., careful titration of viral dose, early diagnosis, and optimal medical care), Sam might face little, if any, additional risk related to experimental infection. Alternatively, Sam's risk of death might be higher than estimated because the vaccine or the strain of virus injected might increase the severity of infection or the incidence of lasting harm. In addition, because the virus is so new and follow-up of those infected limited, the long-term risks of COVID-19 infection are unknown and might be greater than anticipated. Even if Sam's risk from participating is higher than estimated, his danger of death is still well below the 50% threshold that the above poskim use and the 0.1% risk that Tifferet Yisrael permits for healthy individuals undergoing smallpox vaccination. Definition of Hayei Olam - What Benefits Justify Risk? The above discussion, which explored a hayei sha'ah's acceptable level of risk with regard to medical treatments, assumed that the goal of treatment is to achieve hayei olam, a long-term cure. Poskim disagree about whether one may undergo a dangerous therapy for any other purpose, such as prolonging life in the absence of a complete recovery or the relief of pain and symptoms. Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58 and 3:36 prohibits risky treatment that merely prolongs life in the absence of complete recovery. Rav Bleich offers a different perspective.[11] Quoting Ramban's Torat ha-Adam,[12] which derives from the phrase, "le-hayei sha'ah lo haishinan" the principle that "we are not concerned with possible [loss of] hayei sha'ah in the face of more life (hayei tuva)," Rav Bleich interprets "hayei tuva" to mean more life, and concludes that Ramban would permit dangerous medical treatment to achieve a longer period of hayei sha'ah, even in the absence of a cure. Iggerot Moshe Yore De'ah II:36 prohibits dangerous treatment for pain relief alone. Rav Yaakov Emden, Mor u-Kezi'ah 328, writes that surgery for pain relief is not "hutar le-gamrei," categorically permitted, suggesting that under specific circumstances it might be allowed. Tzitz Eliezer 13:87 permits morphine for a dying patient, although morphine might hasten his death, because nothing torments man more than intractable pain. Thus, Tzitz Eliezer would argue, a hayei sha'ah may undergo dangerous treatment not just to achieve hayei olam but also to achieve hayei tuva, longer life or pain relief. What is the benefit to Sam of participating in the human vaccine challenge trial? Will participation give him hayei olam, hayei tuva, or some other non-life prolonging benefit? First, vaccination itself or infection with or without vaccination might yield hayei olam -- a long-term cure and permanent immunity to COVID-19, akin to Tiferet Yisrael's smallpox vaccine. However, it is possible that the vaccine or infection will only provide temporary immunity. Here, participation will not achieve hayei olam, but only hayei tuva, but revaccination to boost his immunity could yield hayei olam. Second, because Sam lives in a high-infection zone, he faces a real risk of becoming infected even if he does not participate. Participation guarantees Sam priority in the allocation of medical resources and the best medical care should he become infected. By participating, Sam decreases his risk of complications and death from infection. Better care could improve his medical outcome and increase his chances of surviving COVID-19, thus facilitating hayei olam. Furthermore, if he develops immunity, he can no longer infect his family. The possibility of achieving long-term or short-term immunity to COVID-19, better treatment if infected, and relieving anxiety over infecting others are direct benefits to Sam for participating in the trial. However, it is possible that participation will provide no benefit, direct or indirect, to Sam. Sam's ultimate motivation for participation, like that of the thousands of volunteers who have come forward to participate in these trials, is altruism, helping to discover an effective vaccine that will save millions of lives. May one undergo a dangerous treatment in order to save others? Incurring Risk to Save Others Citing Talmud Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426 obligates one to place himself in a possible danger to save the life of someone facing certain danger. In Shulhan Arukh, Rav Yosef Karo and Rama omit this requirement. Sema Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 explains that Shulhan Arukh and Rama follow Rambam, Rif, Rosh, and Tur, who also omit this obligation. Pithei Teshuvah Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 suggests that they omitted this obligation because it contradicts Talmud Bavli (Niddah 61a and Sanhedrin 73a) and Jewish law typically follows Talmud Bavli. Radbaz 3:627 (53) was asked if a foreign government demands that a Jew undergo removal of a limb, a procedure presumed not to endanger his life, to save the life of another Jew, may one do so. He answers that one who consents acts with midat hasidut, a degree of piety, but if amputation will endanger his life, he is a hasid shoteh, acting illogically by violating the commandment va-hai bahem (which Sanhedrin 74a understands to mean that mitzvot are to live by and not die by). Similarly, in in Radbaz 5 Lilshonot ha-Rambam 1:582 (218), he addresses whether one is obligated to save the life of a fellow Jew, he explains that if the rescuer faces a safek mukhra - a certain danger - he has no obligation to act. But if the odds are greater that he will save his friend without endangering himself, failure to rescue transgresses lo ta'amod al dam rei'ekha. Tiferet Yisrael bases his teshuvah permitting a healthy volunteer to undergo smallpox vaccination on Talmud Yerushalmi and Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which obligate a person to place himself in danger to save a drowning friend. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if one may endanger himself to rescue his friend from danger, he may certainly assume risk of vaccination to save himself and achieve long-term immunity. In fact, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:174:4 permits one to accept a possible danger if it will save someone else from a definite danger. Tzitz Eliezer 13:101 rules that one may participate in experimental therapy and donate blood to benefit others if physicians determine that participation is risk-free. We consider such participation a mitzvah. In this situation, however, physicians cannot determine the risk of Sam's participating in the human vaccine trial and cannot claim that the trial is without risk. In Yehaveh Da'at 3:84, Rav Ovadia Yosef prohibits treatment with a risk greater than 50% based on Radbaz's classification of a rescuer who endangers himself for a safek shakul as a hasid shoteh. Rav Ovadia Yosef states that the majority of Aharonim, including Eliyah Rabba 328:8, Netziv ha-Emek She'eilah Re'eh 147:4, Aruh Ha-shulkhan 426, Mishpat Kohen 143-2, Heikhal Yitzhak Orah Hayyim 3, and Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 1:145, support this position. However, he permits kidney donation and even considers it a mitzvah, because the risk to the donor is low; according to the physicians with whom he consulted, 99% of donors recover fully from the operation. Interestingly, like Rav Ovadia Yosef, ethicists point to kidney donation as a model for determining the level of risk one may accept to benefit others[13,14] and consider the risk of death from participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial equivalent to the risk of death from kidney donation.[15] Because the risk of death from participating in this trial is significantly less than 50% and is comparable to the risk of kidney donation, Halakhah would seem to permit Sam's altruistic enrollment to save others from certain death from the virus. In fact, Sam's participation, which has the potential to save not just one life, like a kidney donor, but millions, is not only permitted but meritorious. One might even argue that Sam is obligated to participate based on lo ta'amod al dam rei'ekha. Rav Asher Weiss in Minhat Asher 3:122 cites Ta'anit 18b as proof that an individual may endanger himself to save the community, and in doing so performs a great mitzvah. According to Rashi, Turyanus, a Roman official, accused the Jews of murdering the emperor's daughter. He threatened mass execution unless the guilty party confessed. To save the community, Lilianus and Pappus, falsely do so. Turyanos executes them and spares the community. Rav Weiss concludes that an individual who gives his life to save the community has a direct path to the Garden of Eden. He states that when a nation is at war, there are unique rules of pikuah nefesh, the obligation to save a life. To win, the nation requires the self-sacrifice of not only its soldiers, but all those who fill essential, life-saving roles, such as police officers, fire fighters, security guards, and physicians. In the midst of a pandemic that has infected 13,000,000 and led to the death of 500,000 worldwide, one may reasonably conclude that we are at war with COVID-19, and that Sam and the other volunteers for a human vaccine challenge trial are voluntary conscripts. Though Halakhah permits one to undergo risky treatment to achieve a long-term cure, poskim, including Tiferet Yisrael Yoma 8:3, do not obligate participation. If the chance that the treatment will succeed is greater than 50%, Iggerot Moshe in Yore De'ah 3:36 and Choshen Mishpat 2:74:5 Rav Bleich explains that assuming risk for a long-term cure is permitted but not obligatory, because we trust a person to do what is reasonable to safeguard his body from danger. For those who are risk averse, undertaking a dangerous treatment or participating in a human vaccine trial would be unreasonable, while for the less conservative, such as Sam, the risk is acceptable. Experimental Therapy in Halakhah The discussion about dangerous medical treatment applies to therapies with known medical benefits. How does Halakhah approach risks incurred for experimental therapy with no proven benefit? Ttitz Eliezer 13:101 limits participation in experimental treatment to trials that are risk-free. Rav Moshe Dov Welner in ha-Torah ve-haMedinah, VII-VIII (5716-5717), 314, prohibits participation in clinical trials that lack scientific basis. He addresses a situation where the physician has no idea how to treat a disease and decides to experiment on a dying patient because the patient will die anyway. He calls such a physician a terrorist. The scientific reality surrounding human vaccine trials is vastly different than this extreme example. While the exact benefits of participation - such as whether the vaccine confers immunity and whether it will eradicate COVID-19 - are unknown, these trials employ vaccines that have already shown promise in preliminary trials and undergone extensive review by governmental and international agencies that have approved their scientific merit as potential vaccines. Such trials would not qualify as acts of desperation, implemented because the patient is dying anyway. Minhat Shlomo 2:82:12 permits participation in medical research, classifying the battle against disease as a milhemet mitzvah, a necessary war. Today we do not have a king or beit din to declare a milhemet mitzvah against disease and obligate the healthy to take dangerous medicines to help find a cure. He writes that because recognized experts, our contemporary equivalent of a beit din or king, take great care to execute these studies, one may participate. He explains that participation qualifies as holeh lefanenu, the presence of an actual sick person before us, which is considered a fundamental halakhic requirement for defining a situation as pikuah nefesh. In Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De'ah 280, Rav Yehezkel Landau prohibited autopsies because they are for the benefit of future patients, not those who appear before us now, and thus fail to meet a strict definition of holeh lefanenu.[16] Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explains that those autopsies were performed exclusively to increase the physician's knowledge, so are not comparable to experimental therapy. Rav Auerbach believes that contemporary medical research qualifies as holeh lefanenu because those sick with these diseases are before us, and the treatments to be tested are before us. He considers participation in clinical trials safek hatzalat nefashot - possibly life-saving - and not merely an academic exercise to increase scientific knowledge. Human Vaccine Challenge Trials Recently, Rav Asher Weiss[17] directly addressed the permissibility of participating in such trials. Reiterating his position in Minhat Asher 3:101 that one may endanger oneself to perform an essential communal role such as serving as a police officer, rescue worker, or even judge who risks death threats, he permits young, healthy individuals to participate in COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trials in controlled environments because the risk of complications or death is low, especially for those who are young and lack comorbidities, and the trial can potentially save thousands of lives. He notes the concerns of Noda be-Yehuda[18] and Hatam Sofer,[19] who prohibited autopsies because such procedures failed to satisfy their halakhic definition of holeh lefanenu. Rav Weiss explains that even if we do not define participation as pikuah nefesh, overriding biblical and rabbinic prohibitions, it is a mitzvah since it will save millions of lives. This social good permits Sam to assume the small risk of participation. Furthermore, one cannot extrapolate from the autopsies of the Noda be-Yehuda to contemporary scientific reality. It is highly unlikely that autopsies performed two hundred years ago affected medical care. He writes, "verifying the efficacy of a vaccine would not be categorized as a benefit in the distant future, but rather as a great mitzvah that is, in fact, halakhically considered to be possibly life-saving." He rejects Rav Auerbach's classification of medical research as milhemet mitzvah because this designation obligates participation in medical research, and Rav Weiss believes that participation is not obligatory. Only wars fought against enemy armies qualify as milhamot mitzvah, not public dangers such as wild animals and diseases, to which only the laws of pikuach nefesh apply. Conclusion The halakhic decisions cited above, including perhaps even Radbaz, would seem to permit Sam's participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial, because a healthy individual may incur a small risk of death, comparable to the risk permitted for other acts of altruism such as kidney donation to achieve long-term immunity. In addition, the potential benefit to society is immeasurable, preventing the death and suffering of millions by halting the spread of this pandemic and ending the physical, psychological, and economic devastation of prolonged social distancing. Table 1 ... [Okay, I couldn't pass the summary table of who defines chayei sha'ah as how long to the digest. So, go check the URL for yourself! Skipping to the foonotes. -micha] ... [7] Shvut Yaakov 3:75, Pithei Teshuvah Yoreh De'ah 339:1, Gilyon Maharsha Yoreh De'ah 155:1, Binat Adam 73, 93, Binyan Tziyyon 111, Tiferet Yisrael Boaz, Yoma 8:3, Ahiezer 2:16:6, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De'ah 2:58 and 3:36, and Tzitz Eliezer 4:13, all permit a hayei sha'ah to undergo risky medical treatment for cure. [8] Bleich, J.D., "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures," Tradition, 37, no.3 (2003): 76-100, [241]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23262430 . [9] Bleich, J.D. "Genetic Screening: Survey of Recent Halachic Periodical Literature," Tradition, 34, no.1 (2000): 63-87, [243]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23261641?seq=1 . [10] Verity, R. et al, "Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis," Lancet Infect. Dis. March 30, 2020, [245]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20 )30243-7/fulltext . [11] Bleich, J.D., "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures," Tradition, 37, no. 3 (2003): 94. [12] Kol Kitvei ha-Ramban, II, 38. [13] Miller, G., Joffe, S., "Limits to Research Risks," J. Med. Ethics 35, 445 (2009). [14] Resnik, D., "Limits on Risks for Healthy Volunteers in Biomedical Research," Theor. Med. Bioeth. 33, no. 2 (April, 2012): 137. [15] Verity, R. et al, "Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis," Lancet Infect. Dis. March 30, 2020, [251]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20 )30243-7/fulltext. [16] For a more detailed discussion of the definition of holeh lefanenu in Covid-19, see our earlier Lehrhaus essay, [253]https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/sharpening-the-definition-of-h oleh-lefanenu-the-diamond-princess-and-the-limits-of-quarantine/. [17] Rav Asher Weiss, "Experimental Treatments for Coronavirus," Mosaica Press (2020): 5-7. [18] Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De'ah, 210. [19] Hatam Sofer Yoreh De'ah, 336. From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Aug 20 14:43:28 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:43:28 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. Message-ID: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> << Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory...." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required." Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? >> See Igeros Moshe Even HaEzer Chelek 1 siman 48 and also (and particularly) Igeros Moshe Orech Chaim chelek 5 siman 37:12: ????? ???? ???? ????, ???? ?????. ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????. ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????. ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? (???? ?"? ?"?), ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????. ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????. The covering of the head before her husband is not necessary. Since the prohibition of uncovering the head is only in the marketplace. And even at the time of her period, there is no prohibition in her house before her husband and children. And there is a hidur to do like Kimchit (Yoma 47a) but we have not heard that there are any modest like this and even in the earlier generations. And in the time of the Tanaim the married women were not accustomed so except for individuals like Kimchit. Note specifically *but we have not heard that there are any modest like this, and even in the earlier generations*. A reasonably translation of this is surely: neither Rav Moshe's wife, nor his mother did this. <> I think it depends on your community. In a modern orthodox community in which most women are not covering their hair when they go out in a public place either, I suspect many if not most of the few women who do cover their hair when they go out absolutely rely on this position, and sometimes more lenient ones inside their homes (ie only cover their hair when they go out, as per the pshat of the mishna & gemora in Ketubos as referred to by Rav Moshe, and not when in their home regardless of who is there). In the Satmar community where they shave their heads, no, I am pretty sure no women are relying on this leniency. Within the communities on the spectrum between these two poles, I suspect it varies, getting more likely as you move towards the more "modern" end and less likely as you move towards the more charedi and certainly Chassidic end. But Rav Moshe never having heard of it in his and in previous generations is a notable data point. Regards Chana From mcohen at touchlogic.com Thu Aug 20 17:04:40 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:04:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. In-Reply-To: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> Thank you for your comments RCL wrote... Note specifically *but we have not heard that there are any modest like this, and even in the earlier generations*. A reasonably translation of this is surely: neither Rav Moshe's wife, nor his mother did this. True; although I would like to hear what the Feinstein children testify about their mothers hanhaga.. RCL wrote... Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the presence of your father, husband and son. R moshe as quoted only mentions husband/children. Where/how do we expand this to her brother? if it was bc of the simple pshat of the Mishna & gemora in Ketubos, then everyone should be ok inside (not just brother/family) and if the heter is based on inside - is uncovered hair allowed when swimming w husband/children alone (but outside)? (it is illogical to suggest that there is a continual obligation to cover her hair outside, even when a permissible situation such as alone or only with other women) Mc From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Thu Aug 20 17:56:42 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 01:56:42 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. In-Reply-To: <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> References: <047401d6773a$f12e4c00$d38ae400$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <039001d6774e$ab2177a0$016466e0$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <000001d67755$efd44600$cf7cd200$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMC writes: <> Actually, this wasn't me, this was the yoetzet website you quoted. <> I assume that the reasoning behind the website's psak is based on with whom she is allowed to have yichud. Rav Moshe also doesn't specifically mention father, and yet the logic of the website including father as automatically on the same page as husband and children would seem to be driven by the unity of halacha regarding yichud. The yichud status of brothers is a bit more complex, as a certain level of yichud is allowed, but not completely, and hence they would seem the logical extension to question, and one could understand a view that, to the extent yichud is allowed, so should this be. >Mc Regards Chana From akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com Fri Aug 21 03:06:29 2020 From: akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 06:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat hanehenin Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > I'd love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - > machshava balma (random thought?) which has no halachic significance, > amira (specific oral articulation) which is completely binding and > amen/specific machshava (really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat > indeterminate (not welcome in a brisker world?) It seems to me that what you're really asking is: How/why does "Shomea k'oneh" work? Why is it that if I listen to someone say something, and we both have the correct "specific machshava", it is considered "as if" I had said it myself? And, just as importantly, to what *extent* is it considered as if I said it myself? As an illustration of this principle, R' Danny Schoemann cited the Kitzur in 127:3 > Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday > following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi > shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient... > Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, > you may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself. I'd like to offer another illustration: If a person is saying Shemoneh Esreh when the shul is at Kaddish or Kedusha, Mechaber 104:7 writes that "He should be quiet and pay attention to the shatz, and it will be like he is answering." And the Mishne Berura 104:28 explains: "It will be like he is answering for the purpose of being thereby yotzay for Kaddish and Kedusha, but nevertheless it is not considered a hefsek." The halacha of Shomea K'oneh seems to allow us to have it both ways: We have *effectively* said something, yet not *actually* said anything. [Email #2. -micha] Addendum to what I wrote a few minutes ago: I know that Shomea K'Oneh is effective even when one does not actually respond "Amen". After all, a precise translation of the phrase would NOT be "listening is like answering Amen", but is rather "mere listening is like repeating it yourself." And yet, I seem to recall that there are some specific cases where the halacha differs depending on whether the person actually said "Amen" aloud, vs where he merely listened with all the correct intentions. Does anyone else know of such cases? Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 21:33:33 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:33:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: To prevent the spread of COVID see https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the shofar? Does it affect the sound? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Fri Aug 21 04:57:08 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:57:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21/8/20 12:33 am, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > To prevent the spread of COVID see > https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ > > What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the > shofar? Does it affect the sound? The OU says it doesn't appear to. https://www.ou.org/covid19/ 9. Shofar: An appropriate precaution during shofar blowing would be to place a surgical mask over the wider end of the shofar, as this does not appear to alter the sound of the shofar blast. Some may point the shofar out an open window or door, or near and towards the front wall or aron kodesh, facing away from the congregation. A single shofar should not be used by multiple people, and no barrier should be placed between the shofar and the mouth of the one blowing the shofar. Poskim have addressed when and how much to sound the shofar where the time in shul is seriously limited -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 12:07:00 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 15:07:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 07:33:33AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > https://www.timesofisrael.com/put-a-face-mask-on-your-shofar-so-it-wont-blast-virus-to-worshipers-experts/ > What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the > shofar? Does it affect the sound? As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does not affect the sound. But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer without specifying which kind(s) of masks they experimented with. The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else with sensitive hearing in the minyan, you need them to say they don't hear a difference if they personally wish to be yotzei.) But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use. Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices. Chodesh Tov! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but add justice, don't complain about heresy, Author: Widen Your Tent but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Sat Aug 22 17:47:42 2020 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 20:47:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:45 PM Micha Berger wrote: >> What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the >> shofar? Does it affect the sound? > As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does > not affect the sound. > But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer ... > The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound > of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else > with sensitive hearing in the minyan... > But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the > resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use. > Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from > the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices. I blow shofar for my shul. I have placed a surgical mask on the shofar and blew the shofar for the Rav both on and off without him looking at the shofar. He did not hear a real difference and I concurred. You can get a different sound from the shofar depending on how you place it on your lips and the amount of air used. Rav Shulman of YU / YI Midwood suggests blowing under your tallit or at a door without a mask on the shofar. From zev at sero.name Sun Aug 23 01:04:56 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 04:04:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does > not affect the sound. No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound, and is therefore permissible. I have no idea whether they're right, but this is what they say, and they know the halacha, so I assume they've done whatever is necessary to determine the metzius. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 06:11:31 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 09:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> References: <20200821190700.GA32271@aishdas.org> <61eb10e1-f367-f431-8010-e062ec0a4c8e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20200823131130.GA6504@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 04:04:56AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does >> not affect the sound. > No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound... As per the rest of the post you're quoting: My comment was that they take it for granted that the mask(s) they tested with are indicative of the mask a member shul may be using. I would not. (Had I been in the OU, I would have been more specific about which brand mask.) But I'm not questioning their pesaq that listening on the other side of the mask is the original qol and not a "qol havarah". ("Hatoqeia lesokh habor, mishnah RH, on top of 27b in Vilna Bavli) I therefore isolated their halachic stance which from their depiction of the mtzi'us. Because I wanted to raise the question whether, even leshitasam, is a piano tuner or other person with sensitive hearing can hear a difference the rest of us can't, would he be yotzei. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect http://www.aishdas.org/asp painting? It's easy. Author: Widen Your Tent Make yourself perfect and then just paint - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 19:45:48 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 22:45:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault Message-ID: . At the Eglah Arufa, the zekeinim declare, "Our hands did not spill this blood! Our eyes did not see!" I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: > The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly > responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any > stranger from our city without food (so that he might have > been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or > without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected > on a dangerous road)." How can the zekeinim have been so sure? Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed? We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident? I considered the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas Orchim organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never will happen. (The three listed there, if I read it correctly, are Ben Sorer Umoreh, Ir Hanidachas, and a house getting tzaraas.) But it's *not* listed there, so I suppose it might have happened, or at least, *could* happen. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Sun Aug 23 06:35:32 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 13:35:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed? > > We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident? > > ??????- I?m not sure these are Mutually exclusive. Perhaps they are saying that the fault is not systemic and of course we have to see where we fell short and try to improve on it Kt Joel RichTHIS 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 zev at sero.name Sun Aug 23 07:39:22 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 10:39:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22/8/20 10:45 pm, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I considered?the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only > done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the > Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas?Orchim > organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever > occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been > listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never > will happen. The answer seems very simple. Not even the most thorough hachnassas orchim will ever prevent all murders, because most crimes are *not* committed out of need. The idea that the victim was actually a robber who was killed in legitimate self-defence, but in a further plot twist he only robbed out of desperate need, and had the city's elders done their job this would never have happened, is very far-fetched. The overwhelming likelihood is that he was an innocent person who was killed by a robber who was acting out of greed or sheer wickedness, as *most* robbers do. The Zekeinim are merely ruling out that far-fetched scenario in which they would bear some responsibility. And if you ask why, in that case, do they have to go through this whole rigmarole to rule it out, I suggest that it's so that this possibility is always on their minds, and they do their utmost to make sure that in the unlikely even that a body is ever found they should be *able* to make this declaration. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Aug 23 06:27:37 2020 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:27:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Going swimming with your sister Message-ID: I always thought that brothers and sisters (even teenagers) could go mixed swimming privately just the immediate family because we assume that there are no hirhurim among immediate family members. However, I listened to the Headlines podcast where he interviewed an Israeli posek from Machon Puah who claimed that it was forbidden. Anyone have any sources? Piskei Halacha from modern poskim? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Aug 23 09:24:06 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:24:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee Message-ID: From https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-will-be-travelling-and-would-like-to-know-if-there-is-a-concern-of-bishul-akum-with-coffee-a-consumers-question I will be travelling and would like to know if there is a concern of bishul akum with coffee? (A consumer's question) OU Kosher Certification Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel. Raw coffee beans are inedible, a... See the above URL for more. From zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 24 09:27:09 2020 From: zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com (Zalman Alpert) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 12:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As > previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh > al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel. > Raw coffee beans are inedible, a... Great example of what DR Hayym Soloveitchik wrote about in his seminal essay Rupture and Reconstruction. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Aug 24 10:49:59 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 13:49:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200824174959.GF11765@aishdas.org> Bishul aku"m only applies to foods that are olim al shulchan melakhim. Qiddush can be made on chamar medinah. Seems to be a lower standard, when it comes to drinks, as the masses are unlikely to be pickier than their kings. The AhS (OC 272:12) ranks yayin and then sheikhar ahead of other drinks, but does include sweetened tea among the things one may make qiddush on. Similarly, IM OC 2:75. (Likely an indication of the price of sugar, RYME names tei matoq in particular as chamar medinah, not just writing "tei". Another measure of their poverty is his discussing their general use of raisin wine, as a reason why they were allowed to choose sheikhar even if wine was available. Meaning, I don't know if the AhS would allow this choice for us today.) But I am wondering benogei'ah to our original topic is whether it's possible to formulate a consistent shitah in which coffee can not be used for Qiddush and also cannot be used if bishul aku"m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message http://www.aishdas.org/asp that God is not yet discouraged with Author: Widen Your Tent humanity. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabindranath Tagore From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Aug 24 11:18:23 2020 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 14:18:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: I have an even better solution. Have the baal tekiah get a Covid test now and then a couple days before R?H and if both tests are negative and he is in good health, the chances of him having the virus is almost zero. From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Mon Aug 24 16:08:22 2020 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 7:02 PM Cantor Wolberg wrote: > Have the baal tekiah get a Covid test now and then a couple days before > R"H and if both tests are negative and he is in good health, the > chances of him having the virus is almost zero. It is possible to catch the virus after getting tested. Most tests take days to come back; by then you are contagious. Only if you test positive for antibodies, do you know that you have had the virus. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Aug 24 18:33:48 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:33:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Concern of bishul akum with coffee Message-ID: . According to the OU at the link posted, > Nonetheless, the Pri Chodosh writes that brewed coffee need > not be bishul Yisroel, since coffee is primarily water, and > water does not require bishul Yisroel. I have difficulty following that logic. Granted that if one looks at the ingredients, coffee is indeed primarily water. But why is that fact more relevant than the importance that society gives to this beverage? R' Micha Berger pointed out that Chamar Medinah "seems to be a lower standard" than Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim, and I'd agree. But I think it's irrelevant, because it is obvious to me that coffee is Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim. The dessert at a state dinner would not be s'mores and Slurpees; it would be elegant cakes and coffee. I suspect that for some reason (possibly the fact that Bishul Akum has little to do with kashrus and much to do with limiting our social contact with non-Jews), the rabbis went out of their way to find leniencies for it, and drinks is an example of such a leniency; I suspect that it never occurred to Chazal to extend the gezera beyond solid foods. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Aug 26 09:49:29 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:49:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Honoring Step Parents & More Message-ID: Please see https://vosizneias.com/2020/08/26/honoring-step-parents-more/ I found this to be a very interesting article YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 23:07:38 2020 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:07:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Blowing shofar with a mask on the end Message-ID: It seems more reasonable to blow under the tallis without a mask. After a while, the tokea has to shake water out of the shofar. Slightly challenging with a mask on it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 23:11:27 2020 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:11:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Davening_at_home_on_Yamim_Nora=E2=80=99im?= Message-ID: This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. We will miss out on much of the ?experience? of the piyutim. Does anyone know of guidelines for what to do at home, such as part of chazarat haShatz? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 05:57:18 2020 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:57:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im Message-ID: RChaim Tafel wrote: > This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul > for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. > We will miss out on much of the "experience" of > the piyutim. Does anyone know of guidelines for > what to do at home, such as part of chazarat haShatz? Say them all except for the few you should only ever say when you are shatz, for example the netilot reshut, like all the misod chakhamim unevonim lines and such as the Ochila (which really, in my opinion, despite the popular tunes, the tzibbur should never say, as it is the netilat reshut for the shatz to insert the seder ha'avodah). Also skip obviously hineni he'ani mima'as, as it is for the shatz. Also skip the E-lohein vE-lohei Avoteinu heyei 'im pifiyot (which in my opinion the shatz shouldn't ever say, as it is a prayer for the shatz' success recited by the public). Finally, obviously whenever the cachzor calls for reciting 13 middot, depending on the poskim you follow, either skip or recite with te'amim. Otherwise I see no reason why you couldn'T beautifully sing your way through the entire machzor. But don't use one of these butchered machzorim, go for the real, unabbreviated, full and complete Rdelheim. (I am assuming you're ashkenazi, because Sefardi piyutim are altogether different). [Email #2. -micha] By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata Hu E-loheinu. In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. I am obviously totally tolerant, but it is still poetically wrong, objectively so. ;-) Ketiva vachatima tova, -- Mit freundlichen Gren, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Aug 28 06:14:15 2020 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 07:53 AM 8/28/2020, Chaim Tate wrote: >This year, a lot of us will be unable to go to shul for Rosh Hashanah and >Yom Kippur. >We will miss out on much of the ?experience? of the piyutim. >Does anyone know of guidelines for what to do at home, such as part of >chazarat haShatz? The YI of Midwood sent out an email saying that no piyyutim will be said during the davening on the Yomim Noraim. After all in many shuls the davening on Shabbos has been curtailed due to concerns about the virus. (no speeches and no singing). In some shuls people have been told to daven up to Baruch She'omer before coming to shul. So you won't be missing anything if other shuls follow the YI of Midwood! Personally I hope they do. Long davening can lead to the spread of the virus even with proper social distancing. Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said the it is better to daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more that 15 minutes , IIRC. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From crclbas at aol.com Fri Aug 28 06:49:54 2020 From: crclbas at aol.com (BenS) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:49:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Yomim Tovim References: <2007338277.6646156.1598622594128.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2007338277.6646156.1598622594128@mail.yahoo.com> The RCA And? ?YU have sent suggestions for shuls who want to skip certain piyutim. ASk your Rov for these guidelines. This can also be used for those who must daven at home. But be sure to arrange for Shofar on the second day. Minimum of 30 Kolos are needed. Shonoh Tovah!! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Aug 30 06:53:54 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 13:53:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos Message-ID: Please see https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-want-to-order-a-new-cell-phone-and-am-not-particular-when-it-will-arrive-am-i-permitted-to-place-an-order-online-if-the-website-indicates-the-package-will-arrive-on-saturday/?category&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shsh%20Ki%20Teitzei%205780%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=32470835&spUserID=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&spJobID=1764350018&spReportId=MTc2NDM1MDAxOAS2 YL I want to order a new cell phone and am not particular when it will arrive. Am I permitted to place an order online if the website indicates the package will arrive on Saturday? | OU Kosher Certification The issue here is whether arranging a delivery for Shabbos constitutes Amirah li?akum (instructing a non-Jew to perform melacha on Shabbos), which is prohibited. One might assume that this is analogous to handing a letter to a non-Jew on Friday and a... oukosher.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Aug 29 19:57:19 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 22:57:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d Message-ID: . In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? This may happen elsewhere too, but this case stands out because the form changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out to Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the contrast? If the third person was reasonable in the first part, why switch to the first person later on? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Aug 31 13:58:44 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-want-to-order-a-new-cell-phone-and-am-not-particular-when-it-will-arrive-am-i-permitted-to-place-an-order-online-if-the-website-indicates-the-package-will-arrive-on-saturday > One may not place an order if the delivery will definitely take place > on Shabbos. For example, one cannot send a package with UPS or FedEx > on Friday and select ?next day delivery?. Similarly, one cannot order > a refrigerator or washing machine from a store and arrange for a > Saturday delivery. I disagree with the author on this. Since they could choose to deliver after Shabbos and still fulfil their obligation, you are not telling them to deliver on Shabbos. In the winter this could actually happen. But even in the summer, when you can be fairly sure they won't do that, that's their choice not yours; if they did arrive after Shabbos you would have no right to complain, so you are not asking them to work on Shabbos. Only if they guarantee that "all deliveries will be made during business hours" or something similar would you not be allowed to order a Saturday delivery. And even then, if there's a space for delivery notes, and you write that late night delivery will be OK, that should be enough to permit it, even if you can be fairly sure it won't change anything. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Sep 1 06:53:18 2020 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:53:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > > From: Akiva Miller > > In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today > to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) > > Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > This may happen elsewhere too, I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the G-d of Avraham, etc. Therefore, the layman refers to the G-d of the Kohane, whose biblical role is to teach of Hashem and His Torah and therefore conceptualized Hashem more accurately. (I would have to concede that at first sight this does not work in cases where the person bringing the Bikkurim is actually greater than the Kohane. One can answer that it's a matter of *lo plug, *using a fixed formula for everyone at all times, following the normal situation. Or I would modify my explanation to say that the Kohane may not necessarily have a higher conceptualization but, through his avodah, a unique one not shared by others, which is relevant to the Bikkurim bringer in his role as such.) but this case stands out because the form > changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out to > Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the contrast?... > I think the above explanation works to explain this. In fact, note that the farmer is referring to the G-d of our "ancestors," meaning G-d as understood by the avos. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 12:29:01 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:29:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901192901.GA18013@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:53:18AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > This may happen elsewhere too, > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > G-d of Avraham, etc... I would have written something very similar, if RAM's email weren't still flagged "to do" in my email box when RZL's came in. However, I wouldn't have used the word "hasagah". I would have talked about the need to list "E-lokei Avraham", "E-lokai Yitzchaq" and "E-lokai Yaaqov" separately. To me, it speaks to the idea that the avos each had distinct relationships with the Borei. The "G-d of Avraham" was a different relationship than the G-d Yitzchaq "had" (kevayakhol). I don't know how RZL meant the word "hasagah", but to me it speaks to knowing *about* something. As in greater people have greater understandings of what G-d is. I would instead has said that "E-lokekha" is about the G-d the kohein has time to relate to more constantly than the farmer does. And it might also make the Vidui a statement about the farmer's relationship with G-d. Rather than who has more relationship, but about kidn of relationship. After all, the kohein may be learning, teaching and doing avodah all day, but the farmer teams up with G-d and relies on G-d to produce his crop. That's the point of the vidui -- that the G-d of Yetzias Mitzrayim gets credit for more day-to-day things my success. Something a kohein may only get more vicariously. So, he's saying to the kohein, "G-d is not only how you relate to Him from your ivory tower -- 'Your G-d', realize He also is intimately involved in my life and everyday life." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Interesting quote my signature generator chose from the perspective of being this close to the end of 5780. (Although we must remember, we are likely the first generation for whom life is normally so wonderful, this year qualified as a notably "bad" one.) -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 15:54:36 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901225436.GC18013@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:30:40PM -0400, Ken Bloom wrote: > Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one > should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in > finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. I'll give you "or elsewhere". Here's what I do. 1- During the year, I try to keep a cheshbon hanefesh. Laziness and momentum being what it is, that means that I usually have a journal of the decisions and reactions of a few 1 to 2 month stretches during the year. So, something I do early in Elul is review those, see patterns, what changed during the gaps... And trying to compensate changes because I was just focused on different things in different parts of the year. I then try to mentally fill in the gaps, as I can. And then I make a list of those issues in my reactions, decisions and actions that seem to have recurred a lot. It's often not the issues I was thinking I was failing at before I looked through notes. For that matter, even if you "just" keep a diary of your responses to the week -- not what happened to you, but how you responded to it -- from now to RH would give more insight to what habits and middos might really need the most attention. And to make that list, I try for a list of 2 to 4 items that both need the most attention and yet balanced with things I can actually tackle. For example, I have a long-running battle with ka'as. But it may not be the chink in the armor most ready to move. I might want to work on my frustration threshold, noting that my temper is very often the sum of frustration plus having someone I can pin blame on. And the plan has to be incremental. Not "starting YK I never will..." or "will always", but "starting YK I will take the first step to... which is..." For exmple, not expressing frustration in a given set of situations. Or maybe right after work for the first hour I'm home. Or whatever. 2- So much for correcting past mistakes. My other step is something Bank of America mislabeled Hoshin Planning that I adapted for life. https://www.aishdas.org/asp/hoshin-plan 2a- Find a Mission Statement At this point, I have a mission statement I aspire to live by. The first year, I didn't. I picked a quote from a sefer that at the time (and still) really moved me. Look for something from a seifer (including the siddur) that sums up life's mission for you. Is it about deveiqus? And if about deveiqus -- what does that mean to you? Knowledge (as per the Rambam)? Experiencing the Divine? Having a relationship with Hashem? Partnering with Him in His Work -- and what is His Work? Or maybe you see it in terms of sheleimus or temimus. But then, what is a person supposed to be, that you can talk about being more perfect at being one? Is it emulating Hashem? Or bein adam lachaveiro? Or maybe you're on another page altogether -- you see the Torah's mission for your life in terms of Jewish Nationhood, or humanity. And I realize many of those will yield different phrasing of nearly the same answer. But only nearly the same. There could be situations where connotations matter and have a nafqa mina lemaaseh. But in any case, it has to be moving and inspiring based on the way HQBH made you. In short -- a sentence or two about how you see what the Torah is telling you to be at this point in your life. After the first year, you tweak it and revise it as you change. 2b- Drilling down A Mission Statement is pointless if it doesn't have a way to influence action. In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for the firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could help reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division. His group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc... The idea is that there is an individual programmer like myself can be shown how my program fits in the team's goal, the group's goal and so on up to the firm's goal as written up in the Mission Statement. Similarly life's Mission Statement. We can divide it and subdivide it into managable lists. Maybe three bullet items as top-level goals to make the mission statament happen. And 2-4 each for each of those goals to make subgoals and so on. The idea is to get to the point that when you decide to go to the kitchen to get a cup of coffee, you have a way to relate that decision to the approach to living al pi haTorah that you framed for yourself. Let me give an example, taken from the above blog page. Since I wrote a book based on R Shimon's haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher, the quote would be no surprise. For that matter, ch. 2 is titled "Mission Statement" and is a collection of thoughts about the openining sentence of the haqdamah. See the first paragraph of the copy in Widen Your Tent sec 1.1, pg 45 of the book or pg 4 of https://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf#page=4 So, my orignal mission statement translates to (it is important to be in first person singular): [My] greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that [I] walk in His ways. Now I can divide that into three subgoals: - Having a connection to G-d - Internalizing His Will - Being a conduit of Hashem's Good into the lives of others. Internalizing His will, for example, was first subdivided into - Daily learning (which is what drives projects like AhS Yomi) - Daily Mussar work (like what I'm describing in this post), and - Regular in-depth learning -- chavrusos, shiurim, etc... Notice at this point I can start filling in things I can do this year. What learning? Which shiurim? As in part 1 -- which middos and what are the first months' exercises to chip away at them. (And buying a pretty new notebook. Somehow I do best at cheshbon hanefesh when I have a kewl new toy to do it with.) Hopefully, by month end when this "Spiritual Hoshin Plan" is done, I can pause in the middle of the workday and be able to say for myself that I'm putting up with this irate trader on the phone (I work for a Hedge Fund) so that I can pay for tuition (goal 3.2.4.2.5 or some-such), I can develop my personal creativity (as per 1.2... as being in the image of the Creator is something I view as a Mussar goal), etc.. And thereby give sanctity to an otherwise mundane (and stressfull) activity. And then every year things shift. Both in how I look at the world and in what are the pressing issues requiring more attention. Where parenting sits in the hierarchy was very different when I started than now that my youngest is a teenager. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. http://www.aishdas.org/asp It preserves health, promotes convalescence, Author: Widen Your Tent and helps us cope with adversity. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 12:46:48 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:46:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] It's not our fault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200901194648.GB18013@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:45:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In > the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: >> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly >> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any >> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have >> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or >> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected >> on a dangerous road)." > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed > through unnoticed? Does it say that unnoticed strangers are included? The gemara (Sotah 46b) says (original at https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.9 ): Would it cross our minds that BD were murderers? Rather [they are saying]: He did not come to us and we dismissed him without food. We didn't see him and leave him without accompaniment. My translation matches the TMS's, minus their parenthetic comments. (Which I will now assume is the author's insertions, rather than part of the medrash.) The two phrases "lo ba leyadeinu" and "vera'inhu" seem to me to mean the BD are saying that the didn't neglect anyone they knew of. That not knowing the person was in town would be one of the reasons they wouldn't be guilty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the http://www.aishdas.org/asp better if possible, and of changing himself for Author: Widen Your Tent the better if necessary. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 05:00:31 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos Message-ID: . Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day away. I think it is assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. In contrast, if I request Monday delivery, that would be okay, even though I know that they'll be working for me on Shabbos, because it was their choice to work on Saturday rather than Sunday. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 07:11:20 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:11:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:00:31AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? Well, if there isn't a contracted delivery date of Shabbos, then it's their choice whether to do melakhah for you on Shabbos, Friday or Sunday. The package could sit around in a transfer facility for 25 hours while they deal with more urgent packages if it's not the delivery date. The choice is theirs. But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. I guess in the case of (eg) 3 day delivery, since it wouldn't violate the contract to get it there in 2, someone might argue that you aren't asking them to do the delivery on Shabbos. But I don't know if mutar alternatives matter even when they're implausible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Sep 2 11:46:49 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:46:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66cf413b-bbfa-c02e-885f-8a8bb7e152ce@sero.name> On 2/9/20 8:00 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day > away. I think it is?assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know > that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. I agree, *if* you know where it's coming from, and that it's not bich'dei sheyei'asu without working on Shabbos. But in the general case you don't know that, and I don't see why you have to worry about it just on spec. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 17:45:46 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:45:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said that it is better to daven a > little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that > selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more than 15 > minutes, IIRC. It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time that's been taken from them. Much more important is the speed at which it is said. If the length of time would remain constant, but pages were skipped so that the rest could be said carefully and attentively, THAT'S what Chazal meant by "better to daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Sep 2 13:49:48 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:49:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. ------------------------------- And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's Saturday delivery and you say nothing? KVCT 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 akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 18:08:38 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:08:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: . In the thread "Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im", R' Arie Folger wrote: > By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper > recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused > wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata > Hu E-loheinu. > > In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to > read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next > line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the > opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, > so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the > proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. I can see where some people might read the above, and feel that Rabbi Folger is being subjective and arbitrary in his choices of "proper" and "wrong". I had my brain all psyched up to spend the next hour or so writing a post to explain how he is objectively correct, and then I remembered that we covered this ground four years ago. Anyone who wants to learn more about how the recitation of these piyutim got messed up is strongly invited to review the thread "conservatism in davening" at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CONSERVATISM%20IN%20DAVENING Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mzeldman2 at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 00:33:32 2020 From: mzeldman2 at gmail.com (Moshe Zeldman) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 10:33:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If one should not say ?starting YK I will never...?, then how does that fit with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the vidui is saying ?and I will never do X again?? It sounds difficult to read into the Rambam that he means ?I?m still going to be doing X but I have a plan to eventually stop? On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 4:12 wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > > avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/ > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms > > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Hashem your G-d (Zvi Lampel) > > 2. Re: Hashem your G-d (Micha Berger) > > 3. Re: What to do in Elul? (Micha Berger) > > 4. Re: It's not our fault (Micha Berger) > > 5. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Akiva Miller) > > 6. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Micha Berger) > > 7. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Zev Sero) > > 8. Re: Davening at home on Yamim Noraim (Akiva Miller) > > 9. Re: Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos > > (Rich, Joel) > > 10. Re: conservatism in davening (Akiva Miller) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:53:18 -0400 > > From: Zvi Lampel > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , > > Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d > > Message-ID: > > < > CAPxEyabfrsb8kDLQzd7BTYpcZcQqOcyaDrjdZbyW8pD-K46QbA at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > > > > > > > > From: Akiva Miller > > > > > > In the Bikkurim procedure, the farmer says to the kohen, "I declare today > > > to Hashem your G-d that..." (Devarim 26:3) > > > > > > Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > > > > > This may happen elsewhere too, > > > > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are higher > > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and refers > > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > > G-d of Avraham, etc. Therefore, the layman refers to the G-d of the Kohane, > > whose biblical role is to teach of Hashem and His Torah and therefore > > conceptualized Hashem more accurately. > > > > (I would have to concede that at first sight this does not work in > > cases where the person bringing the Bikkurim is actually greater than the > > Kohane. One can answer that it's a matter of *lo plug, *using a fixed > > formula for everyone at all times, following the normal situation. Or I > > would modify my explanation to say that the Kohane may not necessarily have > > a higher conceptualization but, through his avodah, a unique one not shared > > by others, which is relevant to the Bikkurim bringer in his role as such.) > > > > but this case stands out because the form > > > changes later on in this speech, when the farmer tells how "we cried out > to > > > Hashem, the G-d of *our* ancestors..." (Devarim 26:7) Why the > contrast?... > > > > > > > I think the above explanation works to explain this. In fact, note that the > > farmer is referring to the G-d of our "ancestors," meaning G-d as > > understood by the avos. > > > > Zvi Lampel > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200901/89f8687e/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:29:01 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller , Zvi Lampel > > > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d > > Message-ID: <20200901192901.GA18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:53:18AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > > >> Why does he say "your G-d" instead of "my G-d"? > > > > > This may happen elsewhere too, > > > > > I think the idea is that some people have hasagos of Hashem that are > higher > > > than those of lesser people. The lesser person recognizes this, and > refers > > > to Hashem as perceived by the higher person. This is why we refer to the > > > G-d of Avraham, etc... > > > > I would have written something very similar, if RAM's email weren't still > > flagged "to do" in my email box when RZL's came in. > > > > However, I wouldn't have used the word "hasagah". I would have talked about > > the need to list "E-lokei Avraham", "E-lokai Yitzchaq" and "E-lokai Yaaqov" > > separately. > > > > To me, it speaks to the idea that the avos each had distinct relationships > > with the Borei. The "G-d of Avraham" was a different relationship than > > the G-d Yitzchaq "had" (kevayakhol). > > > > I don't know how RZL meant the word "hasagah", but to me it speaks to > knowing > > *about* something. As in greater people have greater understandings of what > > G-d is. > > > > I would instead has said that "E-lokekha" is about the G-d the kohein has > > time to relate to more constantly than the farmer does. > > > > And it might also make the Vidui a statement about the farmer's > > relationship with G-d. Rather than who has more relationship, but about > > kidn of relationship. > > > > After all, the kohein may be learning, teaching and doing avodah all > > day, but the farmer teams up with G-d and relies on G-d to produce his > > crop. That's the point of the vidui -- that the G-d of Yetzias Mitzrayim > > gets credit for more day-to-day things my success. Something a kohein > > may only get more vicariously. > > > > So, he's saying to the kohein, "G-d is not only how you relate to Him > > from your ivory tower -- 'Your G-d', realize He also is intimately > > involved in my life and everyday life." > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger If you're going through hell > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. > > Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > PS: Interesting quote my signature generator chose from the perspective > > of being this close to the end of 5780. (Although we must remember, we > > are likely the first generation for whom life is normally so wonderful, > > this year qualified as a notably "bad" one.) > > > > -- > > Micha Berger If you're going through hell > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp keep going. > > Author: Widen Your Tent - Winston Churchill > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:54:36 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: avodah at aishdas.org, Ken Bloom > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] What to do in Elul? > > Message-ID: <20200901225436.GC18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:30:40PM -0400, Ken Bloom wrote: > > > Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what > one > > > should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in > > > finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar. > > > > I'll give you "or elsewhere". Here's what I do. > > > > 1- > > > > During the year, I try to keep a cheshbon hanefesh. Laziness and momentum > > being what it is, that means that I usually have a journal of the decisions > > and reactions of a few 1 to 2 month stretches during the year. > > > > So, something I do early in Elul is review those, see patterns, what > > changed during the gaps... And trying to compensate changes because I > > was just focused on different things in different parts of the year. > > I then try to mentally fill in the gaps, as I can. And then I make a > > list of those issues in my reactions, decisions and actions that seem > > to have recurred a lot. It's often not the issues I was thinking I was > > failing at before I looked through notes. > > > > For that matter, even if you "just" keep a diary of your responses to the > > week -- not what happened to you, but how you responded to it -- from now > > to RH would give more insight to what habits and middos might really need > > the most attention. > > > > And to make that list, I try for a list of 2 to 4 items that both need the > > most attention and yet balanced with things I can actually tackle. For > > example, I have a long-running battle with ka'as. But it may not be > > the chink in the armor most ready to move. I might want to work on my > > frustration threshold, noting that my temper is very often the sum of > > frustration plus having someone I can pin blame on. > > > > And the plan has to be incremental. Not "starting YK I never will..." > > or "will always", but "starting YK I will take the first step to... > > which is..." > > > > For exmple, not expressing frustration in a given set of situations. > > Or maybe right after work for the first hour I'm home. Or whatever. > > > > 2- > > > > So much for correcting past mistakes. My other step is something > > Bank of America mislabeled Hoshin Planning that I adapted for life. > > > > https://www.aishdas.org/asp/hoshin-plan > > > > 2a- Find a Mission Statement > > > > At this point, I have a mission statement I aspire to live by. > > > > The first year, I didn't. I picked a quote from a sefer that at the time > > (and still) really moved me. Look for something from a seifer (including > > the siddur) that sums up life's mission for you. Is it about deveiqus? > > And if about deveiqus -- what does that mean to you? Knowledge (as per > > the Rambam)? Experiencing the Divine? Having a relationship with Hashem? > > Partnering with Him in His Work -- and what is His Work? Or maybe you see > > it in terms of sheleimus or temimus. But then, what is a person supposed > > to be, that you can talk about being more perfect at being one? Is it > > emulating Hashem? Or bein adam lachaveiro? Or maybe you're on another > > page altogether -- you see the Torah's mission for your life in terms > > of Jewish Nationhood, or humanity. > > > > And I realize many of those will yield different phrasing of nearly the > same > > answer. But only nearly the same. There could be situations where > connotations > > matter and have a nafqa mina lemaaseh. But in any case, it has to be moving > > and inspiring based on the way HQBH made you. > > > > In short -- a sentence or two about how you see what the Torah is telling > > you to be at this point in your life. > > > > After the first year, you tweak it and revise it as you change. > > > > 2b- Drilling down > > > > A Mission Statement is pointless if it doesn't have a way to influence > > action. > > > > In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for the > > firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could help > > reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division. His > > group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc... The idea is that > > there is an individual programmer like myself can be shown how my program > > fits in the team's goal, the group's goal and so on up to the firm's goal > > as written up in the Mission Statement. > > > > Similarly life's Mission Statement. We can divide it and subdivide it > > into managable lists. Maybe three bullet items as top-level goals to > > make the mission statament happen. And 2-4 each for each of those > > goals to make subgoals and so on. > > > > The idea is to get to the point that when you decide to go to the kitchen > > to get a cup of coffee, you have a way to relate that decision to the > > approach to living al pi haTorah that you framed for yourself. > > > > Let me give an example, taken from the above blog page. > > > > Since I wrote a book based on R Shimon's haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher, > > the quote would be no surprise. For that matter, ch. 2 is titled > > "Mission Statement" and is a collection of thoughts about the > > openining sentence of the haqdamah. See the first paragraph of > > the copy in Widen Your Tent sec 1.1, pg 45 of the book or pg 4 of > > https://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf#page=4 > > > > So, my orignal mission statement translates to (it is important to > > be in first person singular): > > [My] greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals > > and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator > > (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according > > to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the > > creations. So too His Will is that [I] walk in His ways. > > > > Now I can divide that into three subgoals: > > - Having a connection to G-d > > - Internalizing His Will > > - Being a conduit of Hashem's Good into the lives of others. > > > > Internalizing His will, for example, was first subdivided into > > - Daily learning (which is what drives projects like AhS Yomi) > > - Daily Mussar work (like what I'm describing in this post), and > > - Regular in-depth learning -- chavrusos, shiurim, etc... > > > > Notice at this point I can start filling in things I can do this year. > > What learning? Which shiurim? As in part 1 -- which middos and what are > > the first months' exercises to chip away at them. (And buying a pretty > > new notebook. Somehow I do best at cheshbon hanefesh when I have a > > kewl new toy to do it with.) > > > > Hopefully, by month end when this "Spiritual Hoshin Plan" is done, I > > can pause in the middle of the workday and be able to say for myself > > that I'm putting up with this irate trader on the phone (I work for a > > Hedge Fund) so that I can pay for tuition (goal 3.2.4.2.5 or some-such), > > I can develop my personal creativity (as per 1.2... as being in the > > image of the Creator is something I view as a Mussar goal), etc.. And > > thereby give sanctity to an otherwise mundane (and stressfull) activity. > > > > And then every year things shift. Both in how I look at the world and in > > what are the pressing issues requiring more attention. Where parenting > > sits in the hierarchy was very different when I started than now that my > > youngest is a teenager. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable > treasure. > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp It preserves health, promotes convalescence, > > Author: Widen Your Tent and helps us cope with adversity. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of > Mishlei" > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:46:48 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] It's not our fault > > Message-ID: <20200901194648.GB18013 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:45:48PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > > > I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In > > > the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242: > > > > >> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly > > >> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any > > >> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have > > >> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or > > >> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected > > >> on a dangerous road)." > > > > > How can the zekeinim have been so sure? > > > > > > Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have > passed > > > through unnoticed? > > > > Does it say that unnoticed strangers are included? > > > > The gemara (Sotah 46b) says (original at > https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.9 ): > > Would it cross our minds that BD were murderers? > > > > Rather [they are saying]: He did not come to us and we dismissed him > > without food. We didn't see him and leave him without accompaniment. > > > > My translation matches the TMS's, minus their parenthetic comments. (Which > > I will now assume is the author's insertions, rather than part of the > > medrash.) > > > > The two phrases "lo ba leyadeinu" and "vera'inhu" seem to me to mean > > the BD are saying that the didn't neglect anyone they knew of. That not > > knowing the person was in town would be one of the reasons they wouldn't > > be guilty. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp better if possible, and of changing himself > for > > Author: Widen Your Tent the better if necessary. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Victor Frankl, Man's search for > Meaning > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:31 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: > > KNCNNA at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus on > > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? > > > > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day away. I > > think it is assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know that it won't > > be possible unless the package is in transit during Shabbos. In contrast, > > if I request Monday delivery, that would be okay, even though I know that > > they'll be working for me on Shabbos, because it was their choice to work > > on Saturday rather than Sunday. > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/5837fd1d/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:11:20 -0400 > > From: Micha Berger > > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Cc: Akiva Miller > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: <20200902141120.GA27483 at aishdas.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:00:31AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > > Much of this discussion (such as R' Zev Sero's comments) seems to focus > on > > > the arrival and delivery. But isn't the other work also a factor? > > > > Well, if there isn't a contracted delivery date of Shabbos, then it's > > their choice whether to do melakhah for you on Shabbos, Friday or Sunday. > > The package could sit around in a transfer facility for 25 hours while > > they deal with more urgent packages if it's not the delivery date. The > > choice is theirs. > > > > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > > > > I guess in the case of (eg) 3 day delivery, since it wouldn't violate the > > contract to get it there in 2, someone might argue that you aren't > > asking them to do the delivery on Shabbos. But I don't know if mutar > > alternatives matter even when they're implausible. > > > > Tir'u baTov! > > -Micha > > > > -- > > Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his > fellow > > http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew > worries > > Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's > stomach. > > - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:46:49 -0400 > > From: Zev Sero > > To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: <66cf413b-bbfa-c02e-885f-8a8bb7e152ce at sero.name> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > > On 2/9/20 8:00 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > > Suppose I order something on Friday from a location that is one day > > > away. I think it is?assur to request Sunday delivery, because I know > > > that it won't be possible unless the package is in transit during > Shabbos. > > > > I agree, *if* you know where it's coming from, and that it's not > > bich'dei sheyei'asu without working on Shabbos. But in the general case > > you don't know that, and I don't see why you have to worry about it just > > on spec. > > > > -- > > Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer > > zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:45:46 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim > > Message-ID: > > < > CABiM0c+1patT7b5FcLCxbn8wuZsCXzmoGyC846J6cQxP-9JJjQ at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > > > > > Rav Yitzchok Hutner often said that it is better to daven a > > > little with Kavanah, than a lot without. The result is that > > > selichos in Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin take no more than 15 > > > minutes, IIRC. > > > > It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing > > to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better > > than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time > > that's been taken from them. > > > > Much more important is the speed at which it is said. If the length of time > > would remain constant, but pages were skipped so that the rest could be > > said carefully and attentively, THAT'S what Chazal meant by "better to > > daven a little with Kavanah, than a lot without." > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/455f462f/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 9 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:49:48 +0000 > > From: "Rich, Joel" > > To: 'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group' > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on > > Shabbos > > Message-ID: > > < > CY4PR02MB25993558995FE1F789868116BF2F0 at CY4PR02MB2599.namprd02.prod.outlook.com > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > > ------------------------------- > > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's > Saturday delivery and you say nothing? > > KVCT > > 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 10 > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:08:38 -0400 > > From: Akiva Miller > > To: avodah at aishdas.org > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] conservatism in davening > > Message-ID: > > < > CABiM0cJ4esqYBS9zWh5bP1UnGZYs67zrTwZ+HeYOcVVLWc9ULw at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > . > > In the thread "Davening at home on Yamim Nora'im", R' Arie Folger wrote: > > > > > By the way, this is a great time to introduce the proper > > > recitation of certain popular piyutim that are generally paused > > > wrong: Vekhol Maaminim, Ma'aseh E-loheinu, Imru l'E-lohim, Ata > > > Hu E-loheinu. > > > > > > In all this cases, a wrong "minhag" has established itself to > > > read the latter half of one line with the former half of the next > > > line, always weirdly stopping in the middle. Or to use the > > > opening refrain as a closing refrain. That's just plain wrong, > > > so this is the year we can all train to adapt the time to the > > > proper sentence structure, so next year we break the bad habit. > > > > I can see where some people might read the above, and feel that Rabbi > > Folger is being subjective and arbitrary in his choices of "proper" and > > "wrong". I had my brain all psyched up to spend the next hour or so writing > > a post to explain how he is objectively correct, and then I remembered that > > we covered this ground four years ago. > > > > Anyone who wants to learn more about how the recitation of these piyutim > > got messed up is strongly invited to review the thread "conservatism in > > davening" at > > > https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CONSERVATISM%20IN%20DAVENING > > > > Akiva Miller > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200902/fc503c3c/attachment.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Avodah mailing list > > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > > http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah > > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 38, Issue 72 > > ************************************** > > -- ----------------------------- Moshe Zeldman Israel: (+972) 54 256 2888 US/Canada: 647 580 8965 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 18:34:46 2020 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 21:34:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d Message-ID: In Avodah V38n72, RZL noted: > This may happen elsewhere too < The first example which came into my mind when I saw RAMiller's message was a phrase in the P'Zachor *haftara* -- see I Sam 15:15. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 3 09:09:03 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 12:09:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <15e6bfd6-3399-dbb5-a721-6671f0b31da4@sero.name> On 2/9/20 4:49 pm, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after > hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > ------------------------------- > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's Saturday delivery and you say nothing? That should be fine. It's their decision, not yours. You told them you don't mind if they deliver it on Sunday. It's the same as dropping something off at the cleaners right before Shabbos and telling them you want it by 6 AM on Sunday. Since they could work on it all night Motzei Shabbos, you're fine, even though you know they will choose not to. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 18:13:02 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 21:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul Message-ID: . R' Moshe Zeldman asked: > If one should not say "starting YK I will never...", then how > does that fit with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the > vidui is saying "and I will never do X again"? > It sounds difficult to read into the Rambam that he means "I'm > still going to be doing X but I have a plan to eventually stop" Yes, the Rambam does say that at the beginning of Perek 1. But Perek 2 is all about less-than-ideal sorts of teshuva. I concede that I didn't notice the Rambam explicitly mentioning this weaning as a legitimate less-than-ideal form of teshuva. But still, it is hard for me to imagine that he would invalidate someone who said, "I did it, and I should not have done it, and I feel sorry that I did it, and in the future I will do it less than I used to." And even if the Rambam *would* say that such a person has *not* done teshuva, remember the context in which this idea was suggested: a person who has repeatedly found this particular aveira unusually difficult to conquer. Imagine further, that this person succeeds in a slow elimination of this aveira, and after many years - decades perhaps - he has finally conquered it. Such a person would certainly be no less of a Baal Teshuva than the one who the Rambam described in the middle section of halacha 2:1: "Even if he didn't do teshuva until his elderly days, and when it was impossible for his to do what he used to do, even though it's not an excellent teshuva, it still helps him, and he is a Baal Teshuva." Please note that this person described by the Rambam did not even begin regretting his sins until he was too old to do them. That's NOT the case we're discussing. We're discussing someone who still has to battle the yetzer hara. I can't help but wonder if this person, who executed a long, slow, but ultimately successful plan, might get the mitzva of Teshuva retroactively, to the beginning of that plan, maybe even according to the Rambam. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 10:43:29 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:43:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What to do in Elul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200904174329.GB3095@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:33:32AM +0300, Moshe Zeldman via Avodah wrote: > If one should not say "starting YK I will never...", then how does that fit > with the Rambam in Teshuva (1:1) where part of the vidui is saying "and I > will never do X again"? I'm going to shift topics a little from what the Rambam says should be done to what experience (and 20th cent Mussar sefarim) has shown does work. Lots of diets I promised myself I would start right after the chagim never happened. So, I don't think there is much commitment in "starting YK I will never..." Maybe we should be following the incremental approach... Promising now to take steps that by Yom Kippur I would be up to not doing X again, and by Chanukah not doing X-1, and by Pesach, X-2, and by next YK... Again, not claiming you can read that into the Rambam. But it does fit the Rambam's requirements for vidui while still having more chance of success than expecitng to be able to permanently change habits and character on a dime. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. http://www.aishdas.org/asp The purpose of life Author: Widen Your Tent is to give it away. -- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -- Pablo Picasso From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 10:58:49 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:58:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening at home on Yamim Noraim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200904175849.GC3095@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:45:46PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that merely shortening the duration does little or nothing > to improve the quality. Fifteen minutes of rushed mumbling is no better > than an hour of it, except that people will be less resentful of the time > that's been taken from them. Speaking specifically of "echad hamarbeh. ve'echad hamam'it..." and not trying to fit more services into the same number of rooms in the same morning or other pandemic issues... The idea is usually invoked for those of us who abbreviate Pesuqei deZimra in order to say fewer peraqim of Tehillim in the same time the minyan is saying more of them. Not to save time, but to spend more thought and similar time on fewer actions (in this case, speech). BUT... The past century has seen a HUGE shrinkage (sorry for the oxymoron) in attention spans. So, the more likely alternative of 15 minutes of rushed mumbeling may be better than an hour of mumbling while one's mind wanders. For many people, even on Yamim Noraim. May even have a net minus in the minimal kavanah of a rushed mumble. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] http://www.aishdas.org/asp isn't complete with being careful in the laws Author: Widen Your Tent of Passover. One must also be very careful in - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:48:52 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 14:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Order a Package Knowing It May Arrive on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20200902141120.GA27483@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20200904184852.GD3095@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:49:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >> But if it's next-day delivery and you place the order on Friday (or after >> hours Thursday) you know you are asking them to do melakhah on Shabbos. > And if you say I want it by Sunday night and the clerk says OK -that's > Saturday delivery and you say nothing? Can it depend on who makes the decision? What if I ask one set of people to deliver my package, but another set of people make it impossible for them to get into the warehouse / vehicle on Sunday? And if I could guess as much that even if they wanted to deliver on Sunday it's not really in their power to do so? :-)BBii! -Micha From seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:25 2020 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2020 10:31:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avos - Shepherds Message-ID: The Avos ? Forefathers - (and Moshe Rabbeinu and Dovid HaMelech and others) were shepherds. Did they eat sheep? The few times when eating from the flock is mentioned, it seems to be goats (eg, Rivka feeding Yitzchak). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Sep 6 13:24:42 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:24:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can One Use a Public Grill? Message-ID: >From https://www.kosher.com/lifestyle/can-one-use-a-public-grill-1259 [https://www.kosher.com/resized/open_graph/s/h/shutterstock_442567648_banner.jpg] Can One Use a Public Grill? | Lifestyle | Kosher.com Shailah of the Week by Rabbi Zvi Nussbaum Rabbinic Coordinator, Kosher Hotline Administrator for the Orthodox Union Since a campground grill has been used to cook non-kosher foods (non-kosher meats and fish...), it may not be used unless it is properly kashered. The only way to kasher a gr... www.kosher.com Since a campground grill has been used to cook non-kosher foods (non-kosher meats and fish...), it may not be used unless it is properly kashered. The only way to kasher a grill top is with libun gamur (heating until the entire surface of the grill top rack becomes red hot). This can be accomplished by submerging the surface of the grill into burning charcoal. Even if the grill was used within the past 24 hours to cook non-kosher, and even if the grill had not been cleaned, it may still be kashered in this manner, since the intense heat will burn up all non-kosher residue and taste. There is no need to tovel the grill (immerse the grill in a mikvah), since it does not belong to you. It is owned by the park. Instead of kashering the grill, an easier option is to bring along your own grill top and a couple of bricks. If the non-kosher grill can be lifted out of the way, the kosher grill may be put in its place, balanced on the bricks. If you purchase a new grill top, it must be toveled before it is used. A third option is to double wrap your food with two layers of aluminum foil. Once properly wrapped, they may be placed directly on the non-kosher grill. In this case, it is better to clean the grill top first, or let the coals burn off the grease, before placing the double-wrapped food on top. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Sep 6 13:49:28 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:49:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pas Yisroel Message-ID: See https://www.crcweb.org/Pas%20Yisroel%20article%20.pdf Pas Yisroel during Aseres Y?mei Teshuvah Pas Yisroel By: Rabbi Dovid Cohen Administrative Rabbinic Coordinator, cRc Background In the times of the Mishnah, and possible even earlier, Chazal www.crcweb.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Mon Sep 7 04:02:28 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:02:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] 10PM Slichot Message-ID: Anyone know why R' Moshe in O"C 2:105 didn't suggest pre-shacharit slichot rather than 10Pm slichot as a stand in for chatzot (midnight) slichot on the first night of slichot when there was a clear and present danger? Kvct 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 michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 11:26:57 2020 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:26:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashem your G-d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another example, seen via this week's ShMOT: Deu 31 :26. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolberg at yebo.co.za Mon Sep 7 03:41:23 2020 From: wolberg at yebo.co.za (wolberg at yebo.co.za) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 12:41:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 Message-ID: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> "And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. And so paskened the Geonei Olam for about [the last] eighty years. And this is the essential halocha." I have several questions about this. 1. Surely the use of Yiddish translations was very common and accepted? 2. Is this a response to the Reform use of German translations? 3. While the translation of the Shema might be problematic, translation of shemoneh esrei and brochas is surely not the same issue? From zev at sero.name Tue Sep 8 08:01:13 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 11:01:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10PM Slichot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0c0a2053-cf70-2689-d048-d3d3a7c9eab4@sero.name> On 7/9/20 7:02 am, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Anyone know why R? Moshe in O?C 2:105 didn?t suggest pre-shacharit > slichot rather than 10Pm slichot as a stand in for chatzot (midnight) > slichot on the first night of slichot when there was a clear and present > danger? The teshuva isn't about the first night, it's about all the days of selichos, and the situation is that it's impossible to do it either at midnight *or* before dawn. He takes it for granted that selichos must be said at night, Kumi Roni Valayla, and at an Eis Ratzon, which means any time between midnight and dawn, and says the minhag to do it at the end of the night, before dawn, is for convenience. So he reluctantly allows it after the first third of the night, with the proviso that it must be publicised that this is a hora'as sha'ah. Why doesn't he even consider doing it in the morning after daylight? I can think of two possibilities: Perhaps because selichos must be at night; or perhaps because people have to go to work and can't fit selichos in at their normal time for shacharis, and it's already posited in the question that for some reason they can't start earlier. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781 zev at sero.name "May this year and its curses end May a new year and its blessings begin" From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 11:43:48 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 14:43:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dates from Ancient Genes and Koseves Message-ID: <20200908184348.GA9440@aishdas.org> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/07/world/middleeast/israel-judean-dates-agriculture.html KETURA, Israel The plump, golden-brown dates hanging in a bunch just above the sandy soil were finally ready to pick. They had been slowly ripening in the desert heat for months. But the young tree on which they grew had a much more ancient history sprouting from a 2,000-year-old seed retrieved from an archaeological site in the Judean wilderness. Quick, can someone get the volume of these things before Yom Kippur? Kidding aside.... Do people think that the shiur of a kekoseves should be re-assessed, if necessary, based on this newly available data? RYBS, and his version of R Chaim's argument against Radziner tekheiles (or his argument against assuming orez = rice) would imply we don't. Halakhah can only be founded upon mesorah, not scientific data. My summary of that section of Nefesh haRav is at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n073.shtml#12 Anyone want to provide meqoros for other opinions? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... http://www.aishdas.org/asp ... but you're the pilot. Author: Widen Your Tent - R' Zelig Pliskin - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Sep 8 17:48:57 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 00:48:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] directed donations Message-ID: Question someone I know got concerning a contribution: Do you want your donation to the shul to be ?????? ???? ??? Response: I?d go with anonymous and pray that hkbh directs his accountant to allocate it to where it?s most needed. As a matter fact maybe that should be the inscription Thoughts? Kvct 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 llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 9 05:50:41 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 12:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 565:5) writes that the ?Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim? (thirteen attributes of mercy, Shemos 34:6-7) may not be recited unless there is a minyan. When these pesukim are recited in the context of prayer, they have the elevated status of a ?davar she?bikedusha,? like Kaddish or Kedusha, that may only be said in the presence of a minyan. The Mishnah Berurah (581:4) writes that Selichos that mention the Yud Gimmel Middos may be said, provided that those lines are skipped. If one prefers to say the Yud Gimmel Middos, he may do so if he recites them with the trop (cantillation) used for krias haTorah, as that indicates that it is not being recited as a tefillah (M?B 565:12). Mishnah Berurah also adds that any Selichos that are written in Aramaic should be skipped. The basis for this is the Gemara (Sotah 33a), in which Rebbi Yochanan states that angels do not deliver prayers that were recited in Aramaic, but when praying with a minyan one does not need the assistance of angels. Hashem?s presence is in the midst of the minyan and there is no need for angelic intervention. The Mishnah Berurah concludes, if there is no minyan at the beginning of Selichos, Kaddish is not said after Ashrei. Instead, the group should begin reciting Selichos. When the tenth man arrives, the congregation should recite three pesukim together, recite Kaddish and then continue from where they left off. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Sep 10 05:44:42 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:44:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When to Say Se;lichos Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. What is preferable? To wake up early and recite Selichos before dawn (a.k.a. alos hashachar, which is 72 minutes before sunrise), or to stay up late and recite Selichos after chatzos (midnight)? What about saying selichos after alos or after neitz hachama (sunrise)? A. Rav Yitzchak Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Yoma 22a) writes that the preferred time to recite Selichos is before dawn. This can be inferred from the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 3:4) who writes that it is customay to awake at night and recite Selichos until the morning. In addition, Mishnah Berurah (581:1) writes that the end of the night is an eis rotzon (a propitious time when G-d is receptive to prayer), implying that the early mornoing is the most appropriate time for Selichos. Finally, the She?arim Metzuyanim B?Halacah (Yoma 22a) notes that Selichos recited in the early morning is more effective, since it is recited through greater sacrifice; it is more difficult to wake up early than to stay up late. May Selichos be rected after sunrise? Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Divrei Si?ach, vol. 134) holds that it is preferable to recite Selichos after Chatzos than to recite Selichos later in the day after sunrise. On the otherhand, Rav Elyashav and Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach take an oposite opinion and write that it is better to recite Selichos in the daytime (even after sunrise) than to say it after chatzos (quoted in MB Dirshu MB, 581:1). Similiary, the Aruch Hashulchan writes that it has been customary to say selichos in the morning after sunrise for many generations. On the other hand, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt?l (Igros Moshe OC, 2:105) writes that kabalistically, the period after chatzos is as much an eis ratzon as early dawn, and for this reason, for many generations, it has been customary to recite Selichos at night after chatzos. This is also the opinion of the Minchas Elazar (the previous Munkatcher Rebbi), as recorded in Divrei Torah (141:76). Even those who recomend saying selichos in early morning before sunrise agree that on the first night of Selichos, on Motzei Shabbos, it is preferable to recite Selichos after Chatzos. This is because we wish to combine the merit of Shabbos together with the first Selichos. Therefore, we begin Selichos after Chatzos, and do not wait for the early morning (Chashukei Chemed, ibid.). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 15:12:12 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:12:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 In-Reply-To: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> References: <020101d68503$70d71bf0$528553d0$@yebo.co.za> Message-ID: <20200910221212.GB12180@aishdas.org> Sidenote: This se'if was recently studied by Arukh haShulchan Yomi. If you want to join us learning AhS Yomi, see the tools -- calendar, text, RYGB's YouTube playlist -- at http://www.aishdas.org/ahs-yomi ! AhS Yomi covers OC and the applicable portions of YD. (From egg spots to aveilus.) On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:41:23PM +0200, wolberg via Avodah wrote: >> And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the Shema and >> Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. >> And so paskened the Geonei Olam for about [the last] eighty years. And >> this is the essential halocha." ... > 1. Surely the use of Yiddish translations was very common and accepted? For women, yes. In fact, there is a script called Vaibrteitch because translations were in general considered for women. ("Women's Translation". "Teitch" evolved from the language name "Deutch".) Vaibrteitch is different than Rashi script. See examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaybertaytsh > 2. Is this a response to the Reform use of German translations? Likely. That bit about how they used to know Hebrew better is suspiciously post-facto sounding. Maybe when translating to another Semitic language, or to Greek using a millenia old tradition of Hebrew to Greek equivalences, we could have done better than we can to English. However, 600 years ago, translating to German, French or Spanish... No matter how well you know Hebrew, there is simply no close parallel to translate words to. A personal favorite when teaching Mussar is "yir'ah". Yir'ah is a range from awe to fear. Maybe the closest is "awareness of the magnitude of what you're facing" -- whether with admiration (awe) or thinking about risk (fear) or in another way. But because we are thinking "awe or fear" instead of a single concept, we cannot think about the middah of yir'as Shamayim in a fully authentic way. It's not two thing with an "or", or with a second thought about how they're related. It's a single territory that should be part of our gut's language about how we're feeling at a given point in time. In any case, it is true that real translation is impossible. I would faster *guess* that a machloqes about how close a translation may be got closed because the response to Reform forced our hand to choose one shitah over the other. > 3. While the translation of the Shema might be problematic, translation > of shemoneh esrei and brochas is surely not the same issue? Well, we cannot translation "Barukh Atah Hashem", at least not "barukh" or "Hashem" in any precise way. So, maybe not. I am not sure people really know what they mean when they say "blessed". But what is Barukh? - Source of increase - Maximally increased - May You -- in the form of the expression of Your Will in this world -- be incresed - An intentional ambiguity of all of the above? And sheim havayah pronounced as Adnus... - The Atemporal - The All-Compassionate - The Transcendent - The L-rd of All Etc... I would faster think the baqashos would be okay more than berakhos in general. Or maybe the body of the berakhah until the chasimah. As long as the translation is close enough so that it opens and wraps up with me'ein hachasimah. But lemaaseh, the AhS says that's not what "we hold". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. http://www.aishdas.org/asp - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 Author: Widen Your Tent - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:50:27 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Torah Musings] Why Did the Holocaust Happen Message-ID: <20200911175027.GA23887@aishdas.org> A survey by R Gil Student. https://www.torahmusings.com/2020/09/why-did-the-holocaust-happen/ (And a couple of the comments on his post.) :-)BBii! -Micha Torah Musing Why Did the Holocaust Happen? Posted by: Gil Student Posts Sep 7, 2020 As I reviewed the weekly Torah reading for this past Shabbos, which includes the tochekhah (Deut. 28), I was taken back to my teenage years, reading it one Saturday or Sunday afternoon and seeing Jewish history in it. To a non-religious Jewish teenager in the 1980's who grew up among survivors, the question of God in the Holocaust was not a faith issue that could be ignored. Reading the biblical text with minimal commentary (I think I used S.L. Gordon's secular commentary), I saw a prophecy that sin would lead to the kind of inhuman devastation seen in the Holocaust, a prediction that was fulfilled thousands of years later. To me, the Holocaust was not an impediment to faith but a convincing proof of Judaism's truth claims. Not everyone sees it that way. Many are offended by the very claim that the Holocaust was a divine punishment, although often due to objections that miss important discussions in traditional Jewish literature which we will mention briefly below. The issues are so sensitive, and during the 1970's and 1980's in particular the denominational conflicts were so strong, that unnecessarily forceful rhetoric turned an issue of faith into a weapon. In my opinion, a legitimate theological view has been dismissed due to heightened sensitivities and denominational politics. I. Five Approaches to the Holocaust Modern Orthodoxy has developed two main theologies of the Holocaust: 1) Hester Panim - God hid His face, turned away, and let mankind unleash wanton violence. R. Norman Lamm takes this approach in his [51]"The Face of God: Thoughts of the Holocaust". It is important to note that God hides His face (Deut. 31:17) due to Jewish sins (ibid., 16). (Some claim that brief mentions of hester panim by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik in his Kol Dodi Dofek constitute his adoption of this approach, but see R. Reuven Ziegler, Majesty and Humility, p. 277 n. 4, where he dismisses this interpretation.) 2) Free Will - God allows mankind the free will to sin, which includes the ability to murder and torture others. R. Eliezer Berkovits advocates this approach in his Faith After the Holocaust. The alternative approaches generally discussed are: 3) Anti-Zionism - The Satmar Rebbe's argument that Zionism led to the Holocaust, in his [52]Al Ha-Ge'ulah Ve-Al Ha-Temurah. 4) Zionism - The Religious Zionist argument that the Holocaust paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel. This view is attributed to R. Zvi Yehudah Kook (see Aviezer Ravitzky, Messianism, Zionism and Jewish Religious Radicalism, pp. 126-128). 5) Secularization - R. Avigdor Miller popularized the view that the assimilation and secularization of Jews in the 150 years prior to the Holocaust resulted in this punishment. R. Norman Lamm quotes this from R. Miller's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 278-279) and you can find quotes on the subject by searching [53]TorasAvigdor.org for the word "Holocaust". (A reader informed me that R. Miller has a book on the subject was posthumously published -- [54]A Divine Madness: Rabbi Avigdor Miller's Defense of Hashem in the Matter of the Holocaust.) II. The Slabodka Holocaust Theology I would like to explore here the approach of a Holocaust victim, Rav Avraham Grodzinski, the mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva who perished in 1944. I will be blending in another important view of Rav Grodzinski, along with his son-in-law Rav Shlomo Wolbe's presentation of Rav Grodzinski's approach in Rav Wolbe's (anonymously published) book of outreach speeches given in the wake of the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars (originally published as Bein Sheshes Le-Asor, later republished as Olam Ha-Yedidus). Rav Grodzinski's approach is most similar to that of Rav Miller, which is not surprising since the latter studied in the Slabodka yeshiva. However, I am not sure that Rav Miller developed it in the same way as Rav Grodzinski and he certainly did not present it in the same sensitive way as Rav Wolbe. [55]Rav Avraham Grodzinski succeeded Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel ("The Alter") as mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva, when the latter moved to Israel and established a branch of the yeshiva in Chevron. Rav Grodzinski (a brother-in-law of Rav Ya'akov Kamenetsky) stayed in Europe to the end, suffering a martyr's death in the Kovno Ghetto in 1944. He sent his writings to his students in Israel, who together with [56]his surviving sons published them in 1963 as Toras Avraham, a brilliant book of profound Mussar thought presented in the style of Talmudic thinking. [57]Rav Shlomo Wolbe first published Bein Sheshes Le-Asor anonymously in 1975, although it is clearly in his style and was posthumously republished by the foundation to publish his writings. The book consists mainly of his outreach lectures throughout Israel, spurred by the renewed interest in Israel awakened by the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War. The chapter on the Holocaust, however, was prepared for a class at the Bais Ya'akov of Jerusalem (commonly known as BJJ). I assume that Rav Wolbe included this chapter because he believes that this issue is important to those seeking to grow in faith. Rav Wolbe begins with a story emphasizing the importance of finding meaning in your suffering. It is obvious, he says, that we must help others by alleviating their suffering in any way possible. However, faith teaches us that there is meaning in suffering, a lesson to be learned. Rav Wolbe continues that even when God hides His face from us, there are no accidents. Therefore we must examine our lives to see what God wants from us. This is true not just for individuals but for nations as a whole. Throughout, Rav Wolbe quotes mainly biblical verses to prove his points, although I can think of many Talmudic passages that would do likewise. The believer is strengthened from the fact that destruction and suffering do not occur by happenstance but rather come guided by divine providence after ample warning. The traditional Jewish texts of the Bible, Talmud and Midrash warn us of the horrific consequences of sin. Rav Wolbe highlights in particular the language of the Gemara (Kesubos 111a), while sidestepping the specific Talmudic context, of "If not, I (God) will abandon your flesh like the gazelles and like the hinds of the field." Due to sin, Jewish flesh will be hunted like animals. Nobody, Rav Wolbe continues, is allowed to decide for what reason the Holocaust happened to us unless he personally suffered himself. Only a victim can conduct this examination of the generation. As we will later see, Rav Grodzinski did not necessarily agree with this. Perhaps Rav Wolbe set this condition for rhetorical purposes. Regardless, with that introduction, Rav Wolbe then invokes Rav Grodzinski's Holocaust theology. III. Suffering and Sins The introduction to Toras Avraham (1978 second edition, p. 17) describes how Rav Grodzinski discussed at length with his students in the Kovno Ghetto the spiritual causes of the Holocaust. He listed twelve primary sins, or areas where we were lacking, and exhorted them to strengthen the Jewish people in these areas if they survived the war. Rav Grodzinski wrote all these talks down but the writings were lost in the war. [58]Rav Mordechai Zuckerman survived and recorded the twelve lackings from memory. They are: 1) Faith 2) Shabbos observance 3) Family purity 4) Kosher food 5) Charging interest 6) Torah education of children 7) Wasting time that could be used for Torah study 8) Loving your fellow Jew 9) Lovingkindness (chesed) 10) Making do with less (histapkus) 11) Trust in God 12) The land of Israel (I don't know what this means in this context). I do not know if Rav Grodzinski applied Talmudic statements to his contemporary events, such as "seven punishments come to the world due to seven sins" (Avos 5:8), or if he looked at specific types of suffering and found the "measure for measure" in them, or a combination of both methods or something else. Because his writings were lost, we lack insight into his specific methodology. Regardless, I appreciate his general approach, as described below, and recognize that he used it to reach specific conclusions, which I find worthy as areas to strengthen ourselves. Rav Wolbe adds to the above list the general secularization of the Jewish people that began with Emancipation and continued with the Jewish Enlightenment. This was accompanied by widespread abandonment of Jewish faith and practice. Historically, he claims, every period of "enlightenment" has ended with Jewish tragedy. The Holocaust continues that historical cycle. I believe that Rav Grodzinski's Holocaust theology is intimately connected with his theology of suffering. In a series of lectures in late 1936 and early 1937, Rav Grodzinski explored the unique value of suffering to the religious personality. It might be worthwhile noting that since childhood, Rav Grodzinski suffered great physical pain that he overcame through sheer force of personality. Rav Grodzinski begins by pointing out what we lost as a nation and as individuals by the cessation of prophecy (roughly) after the destruction of the First Temple. The prophets informed us of our sins, directed us to the proper behavior, guided us to spiritual recovery. When prophecy ceased, we lost that guidance but were not left without any religious compass. Suffering shows us where we must focus. God punishes us measure for measure. Therefore, we can look at our suffering, our punishment, as a guide for where we need to improve our behavior. To some degree, suffering is more effective than prophecy. "The removal of Achashverosh's ring (for the sealing of Haman's decree) was more effective than the forty-eight prophets and the seven prophetesses who prophesied on behalf of the Jewish people. They all were unable to bring the Jewish people to repentance, but the removal of Achashverosh's ring brought them to repentance" (Megillah 14a). Additionally, suffering empowers you to find your own path to redemption, without the need for a third party, a prophet. Suffering not only directs you to improve but encourages you, offers you the incentive of freedom from suffering. Rav Grodzinski adds (p. 54) that suffering guides not only the sinners but others, as well. When we see someone suffering and understand the sin that caused it, we learn a very persuasive lesson about what behavior we should avoid. This is true also about the educational value of nations making flawed decisions that seal their fate. The suffering of nations teaches us what national mistakes to avoid (cf. Zephaniah 3:6-7). In Rav Grodzinski's view, a wise and learned person, steeped in Talmud and Midrash, can examine the suffering of the Holocaust to identify its underlying spiritual causes and learn from them. After conducting a careful examination, Rav Grodzinski reached his conclusions (unfortunately, his thought process was recorded in writing but lost) and beseeched his students to work to fix these spiritual problems. IV. Common Objections 1) Rav Wolbe concludes with a common question: Why did righteous people suffer in the Holocaust? He quotes Rav Grodzinski as explaining that the more righteous someone is, the harsher he is judged. R. Akiva suffered from Roman torture and murder because, we are told, "this intention arose before" God (Menachos 29b). What is that intention? Rashi (Gen. 1:1) says, "At first God intended to create the world under the attribute of strict justice, but He realized that the world could not thus endure and therefore gave priority to mercy combined with justice." R. Akiva and the other righteous individuals are judged with the initial intent, pure justice. Even without Rav Wolbe's interpretation of this passage, we see elsewhere that the righteous are judged by a hairbreadth (Yevamos 121b), meaning that what for others constitutes a minor infraction for someone righteous is a big sin. Additionally, once God sends a punishment to a group (city, country, nation), that punishment applies to everyone whether righteous or wicked (Bava Kamma 60a). That is part of being a people -- our fates are connected. In fact, the Gemara (Shabbos 55a) says that when God punishes the Jewish people, He starts with the most righteous. 2) Were the people killed in the Holocaust guilty? - Even though no one can claim to be free from guilt, it is hard to imagine that anyone committed a sin so heinous as to deserve the horrors of the Holocaust. However, a sin committed by many is worse than a sin committed by an individual. Additionally, God is patient and allows time -- generations -- for the Jewish people to return before punishing us. When the punishment arrives, it is not just for that generation but for the previous generations as well (Ex. 20:5; Or Ha-Chaim, ad loc.). The generation of the Holocaust lived at the end of God's long wait for a return that never arrived. We do not stand in judgement of those who died or suffered in the Holocaust, nor do we say that they are more deserving than people before or after them. According to this understanding, they were individuals who lived at a time in history when the Jewish people was punished for its collective sins over many generations, for its long drift away from traditional Jewish observance. 3) Were the Nazis right to kill Jews? - This question is natural but odd. Natural because it emerges from the overall approach but odd because it has been discussed for centuries. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Teshuvah 6:5) asks why Pharaoh and the Egyptians were punished for enslaving the Jews when it was part of God's plan as told to Avraham (Gen. 15:13). Rambam answers that someone was destined to enslave the Jews but the Egyptians were guilty for being the ones to do it and therefore suffered ten plagues and drowning at the sea (see also Ramban, Gen. 15:14; I discuss it [59]here). May the Nazis suffer a hundred times ten plagues for their part in the Holocaust. None of this detracts from God's role in punishing the Jewish people through the guilty Egyptian hands. 4) What value is there in looking for other people's sins? - As discussed above, Rav Grodzinski sees value in learning what to fix. If we do not learn the spiritual lessons of history, we are condemned to repeat them. Additionally, Ramban (Sha'ar Ha-Gemul in Kisvei Ha-Ramban, vol. 2 p. 281; I discuss it [60]here) offers four reasons to engage in theodicy, even if ultimately you cannot fully understand God's ways. First, we benefit from gaining a better understanding of God's ways. More wisdom is good. Metaphysical knowledge, understanding God's actions, is always positive. Second, studying the ways in which God rewards and punishes people strengthens our belief. Our continuous exploration of God's ways reinforces within us His existence and His providence. Our greater understanding affords us confidence that explanations exist to even what we do not understand. Additionally, concludes Ramban, the obligations to fear and love God include a requirement to accept His judgment, to explain and justify God's decisions. This is a mitzvah of tziduk ha-din. 4) Is it sacrilegious to try to understand God's justice? - No, it is a mitzvah, as per the previous point. It also is not insulting to speak of punishment due to sins. When the Shakh writes about the Chmelnitzki massacres, he refers to what happened to us "due to our sins." When the Ra'avan writes about the First Crusade ([61]Kuntres Gezeiras Tatn"u), he specifically invokes the tokhecha, saying that they experienced all of the biblical curses. This is a strain of, if not the dominant strain in, traditional Judaism. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Ta'aniyos 1:3) calls it cruelty to fail to look for the sins that led to divine punishment. 5) Can anyone know God's reasons absent prophecy? - Rav Yitzchak Hutner ("Holocaust" -- A Study of the Term, and the Epoch it is Meant to Describe" in [62]Jewish Observer, October 1977, p. 9) writes: "One would have to be a navi or Tanna (a prophet or Talmudic sage) to claim knowledge of the specific reasons for what befell us; anyone on a lesser plane claiming to do so tramples in vain upon the bodies of the kedoshim who died Al Kiddush Hashem [as holy martyrs] and misuses the power to interpret and understand Jewish history." On the other hand, this same Rav Hutner gave an approbation to Rav Wolbe's book quoted above. Furthermore, it seems that Rav Grodzinski, himself a holy martyr, felt his method of analyzing suffering serves the function of prophecy in today's age. 6) Why does this usually ring so hollow? - When the Holocaust is discussed without sensitivity and empathy, the proposed explanations sound shallow and offensive. In my opinion, that is why Rav Wolbe began with a long introduction and invoked the conclusions of a Holocaust victim, Rav Grodzinski. Furthermore, many of the people offering explanations today either are, or sound like or are portrayed by the media as being, self-righteous fools. It is hard to take seriously someone whose analysis is shallow and only validates his regular message. If your answer to everything is female immodesty, you lack credibility to offer a thoughtful and nuanced answer. Rav Grodzinski does not face this challenge but some people may unfairly associate him with others who suffer that problem. There may be other reasons that this approach often rings hollow but these should suffice for our purposes. Personally, I benefited from this tokhecha approach which I intuited as a non-religious teenager. I am not certain which sins caused the Holocaust but I am open to honest, sensitive speculation as a way of learning from history, which I believe is that in which Rav Grodzinski and Rav Wolbe engaged. If this approach had been deemed theologically unacceptable, despite its impeccable pedigree, I don't know if I would be religious today. In my opinion, it is a shame to remove this approach from our theological toolbox due to politics and rhetoric from decades ago. ... 3 comments 1. Kovner Sep 8, 20 at 6:44 am You missed out on one more important approach. Read the classic introduction to Zichron Kodosh written by the author of Nesivos Sholom - RSN Barzovsky zt"l. The sefer was published once, and never reprinted. Also, the Toras Avrohom was published by a son - not sons - of RAG. Only one son did not perish. ... 3. Kovner Sep 9, 20 at 7:05 pm I'm not skilled to do so accurately and faithfully. Never the less, I'll venture to say that the central point is that it's all part of Hashem's Grand Plan of human history, and is beyond our comprehension. And therefore the most appropriate response is "Vayidom Aharon"... ... Copyright 2020 All rights reserved References 51. https://merrimackvalleyhavurah.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/the-face-of-god-thoughts-on-the-holocaust/ 52. http://www.mysatmar.com/docs/shite_hakdoshe/ 53. https://torasavigdor.org/ 54. https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Madness-Avigdor-Millers-Holocaust/dp/B00EF68V9C 55. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Grodzinski 56. https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/54188/harav-yitzchok-grodzinsky-recalls-the-last-moments-of-hagon-rav-elchonon-wasserman-hyd-before-his-murder.html 57. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Wolbe 58. https://www.jdn.co.il/breakingnews/1230669/ 59. https://www.torahmusings.com/2016/05/were-the-egyptians-right/ 60. https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/10/why-theodicy/ 61. https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34838&st=&pgnum=2&hilite= 62. https://agudah.org/the-jewish-observer-vol-12-no-8-october-1977chesvan-5738/ From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Sat Sep 12 10:18:12 2020 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 17:18:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Has anyone seen litereature about the following Issues when Davening BiYehidut (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. (2) If one says the piyut of the Avoda after his private Musaf shmoneh Esrei, can he fall korim, what about Aleinu Shanah Tovah, Beri'ah u-metukah! Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Sep 13 20:36:29 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2020 23:36:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 Message-ID: . asked several questions about Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4, who wrote: > And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the > Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew. Spoiler alert: I have several problems with this Aruch Hashulchan, and I suspect that (as R' Wolberg suspects), the AhS had ulterior reasons for writing this (such as the inroads that Reform was making via their translations) and could not have really meant it l'halacha. In any case, there are other poskim who do allow translations. I will begin by giving my own translation of this section of AhS, so that if anyone disagrees with my understanding of what he said, they can bring it to my attention. I will break it into several numbered pieces for easier reference. >>> 1) Know that this [halacha] that Krias Shema and Tefilla may be said in any language - this is certainly when one translates really the entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh into the other language. For otherwise, it would not constitute Shema and Tefilla. 2) According to that, this law does not apply except in the time of the Mishna and Gemara, for they knew our language well, and they were able to translate it. 3) But now, it is well-known that we have a number of uncertainties in explaining the words, and the commentators are divided about it. For example, how do we translate "totafos"? Similarly, the pasuk "Shema Yisrael" has various explanations even of its simple meaning. Likewise in the section about tzitzis, some explain it [the word "tzitzis"] in the sense of "looking" [from the root tzadi yud tzadi], and some explain it as "going" [from yud tzadi aleph]. Same for the word "p'sil" and many [other words] like it. 4) Behold, the essential Name of Havay' - we don't know how to translate it correctly! There are those who translate it as Nitzchi [Eternal], and some translate it as Kol-Yachol [Almighty], and there is no translation at all for "Was and Is and Will Be", which is the real Name Havay', so they equate the translation of the Name Havay' with the Name Elokim. 5) [Here he says something about two very different ways of translating "V'chara af", but I don't understand what he is saying.] 6) And therefore, nowadays it is forbidden to recite Krias Shema or Tefilla or any brachos except in Lashon Hakodesh, and so have the Geonei Olam paskened for about eighty years now, and this is the bottom-line halacha. >>> The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it? He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists? According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty AND Was/Is/WillBe? In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3: 1) It seems in my humble opinion that there is an established halacha by which one can get out of any questionable bracha acharona. For example, one is unsure if he said a bracha acharona or not. Or if he *needs* to make a bracha acharona or not. There is a way to extricate himself from this safek. 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167. 3) If so, one can say "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, boray nefashos etc. ..." If he was obligated in this bracha, then he is yotzay with this. And if he didn't need this bracha, then he has *not* uttered the Name of Heaven in vain, because there is no mention of the Name at all. Look, you can say "Rachamana" a hundred times! 4) Or similar things with other brachos. You should think in your heart that if you need the bracha then it is [being said] for the sake of a bracha; and if not, then it's just talking. 5) I have done this myself several times when drinking hot drinks. The most obvious thing from this section is that the Aruch Hashulchan personally believes that a bracha CAN be said in Aramaic. You might respond that he makes an exception for Aramaic, which is arguably a Lashon Hakodesh. But look again at the AhS's requirements for an adequate translation of Hashem's Name - which is an absolute necessity when saying a bracha - and I don't think "Rachamana" conveys any sense of "Was and Is and Will Be". Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude someone from a partial translation. For example, one could translate most of the words, and leave the difficult words untranslated, which is almost exactly how ArtScroll handles the cited case of "totafos": "Bind them as a sign upon your arm and let them be tefillin between your eyes." If I'm understanding Siman 62 correctly, the AhS wants translation to be all-or-nothing, and since all is not possible, he feels justified in banning all translations. But in Siman 202, a partial translation is exactly what he is doing, by translating the initial words of the bracha, and then continuing with the regular Hebrew text. By the way, it seems that Rav Moshe Feinstein agrees that a translation must be all-or-nothing. See Igros Moshe OC 4:40:27, which is two paragraphs. In the first paragraph, he rejects the AhS's suggestion of using Brich Rachamana to get out of problems, precisely because you can't mix languages in that manner. (It's not at all clear to me why we're not allowed to mix languages, but it is very clear that Rav Moshe rejects it.) In the second paragraph he explains that even if one would say the entire bracha in Aramaic, that too would not resolve a safek bracha problem, because whereas the AhS had no compunctions against saying Rachamana a hundred times, *we* are noheg to avoid saying the Name in vain even when translated. As an aside, there are several teshuvos in which Rav Moshe explains his views on how to translate Hashem's Name for brachos in other languages. See for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:272, where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana, "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ... And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe, whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include concepts like "Was and Is and Will Be". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Sep 14 05:43:25 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:43:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. What is the minimum amount of shofar blowing that one is required to hear? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. In three different places the Torah commands us to blow shofar in the month of Tishrei: Twice in relation to Rosh Hashanah, and once in reference to Yom Kippur (Yovel ? Jubilee). The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 34a) connects the three verses and derives that each time the shofar is blown, it must be blown three times. The Gemara also proves that every blowing of the shofar actually consists of three parts: A Tekiah (a long blow), followed by a Teruah (a broken blow), followed by a Tekiah. This makes for a total of nine blows. The mitzvah is to blow the shofar nine times following this pattern. Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah However, because the Gemara records a disagreement as to the sound of the Teruah, we blow three variations. This amounts to 30 blows. 3X ? Tekiah ? Shevarim Teruah ? Tekiah=(12) 3X ? Tekiah ? Shevarim? Tekiah=(9) 3X ? Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah=(9) This is the minimum amount of shofar blows that one should hear to fulfill their obligation. If even this is too much, at the very least one should make sure to hear at least ten blasts. (See Mishnah Berurah 586:22 & 600:7). Tekiah ? Shevarim Teruah ? Tekiah=(4) Tekiah ? Shevarim ? Tekiah=(3) Tekiah ? Teruah ? Tekiah=(3) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 18:29:14 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 21:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur Message-ID: . R' Aryeh Frimer asked: > Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when > Davening BiYehidut > (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but > perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la > Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head: Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice. Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doniels at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 06:38:38 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:38:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Q. Which parts of Selichos must be omitted if a minyan is not present? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 565:5) writes that the "Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim" > (thirteen attributes of mercy, Shemos 34:6-7) may not be recited unless there is a > minyan. When these pesukim are recited in the context of prayer, they have the > elevated status of a "davar she'bikedusha," like Kaddish or Kedusha, that may only > be said in the presence of a minyan. I actually traced this back to its source - a new obsession of mine. It's a Tur in 565 (Hil. Ta'anis). "Rav Nosson writes there's no Minhag for an individual to say the 13 attributes." (Excuse the stilted word-for-word translation). The Tur then seems to make it clear that he's quoting this to ensure people don't find this Rav Nosson and pasken like it: "I don't know what the problem is since it's like saying Psukim, since the Chachamim only say (not to say w/o a Minyan) a Dovor Shebikdusha like Kaddish, Kedusha and Borchu" (Who is this Rav Nosson? The only Rishon I could find by this name was the Oruch.) The Darkei Moshe injects (on Rav Nosson's statement) saying "our Minhag is (for individuals) to say it, but not during the Shmoneh Esre. The Mahr"iv quoting the O"Z says individuals should not say Selichos." (I.e. they used to say Selichos on Ta'anis during Chazoras haShatz. Actually, we Yekkes still do.) See it online at https://www.sefaria.org.il/Tur%2C_Orach_Chaim.565.1?with=Darchei%20Moshe - for those who can see the Hebrew: , ???? ???? ?????:??:? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?"? ???? [?] ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???: [?] ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????"? ??? ?"? ???? ????? ???? ?????? So the Tur and the Darkei Moshe both agree that an individual can say the "Yud Gimmel Middos Harachamim". The dissenting opinion says to skip Selichos altogether. >From there it's all downhill. The common denominator being that all Nosie Keilim seem to pasken like Rav Nosson and try to find workarounds. I find this fascinating. I wonder if the Tur now regrets ever mentioning this opinion. :-) Note that this is all mentioned in Hil. Ta'anis. In 581 where they discuss Selichot during Elul, they ignore this topic completely. KVT - Danny From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Sep 16 10:42:32 2020 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:42:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] practical and detailed shir for Baalei tokaya and makri Message-ID: <089901d68c50$c22d7680$46886380$@touchlogic.com> Very good. Starts basic, but gets better.. >From Rabbi Mordechai Scheiner, rosh Kollel Ohr Yosef - toronto https://zoom.us/rec/share/xyvl_GE2lRo5GmE02A0XVqL4TEp3Kq4RqYfPZ4zAbezsR4D1c7G8LaIToB8dxYbe.0vgzJDhv9dDlViCP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 13:40:15 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:40:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <2110840790.2504917.1600178620157@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20200914185208.GC25700@aishdas.org> <2110840790.2504917.1600178620157@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20200917204015.GA749@aishdas.org> Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT: > Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim > we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is > problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out sifrei > Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos given to > 12 year olds, etc... > This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked how > we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to celebrate a > siyum that itself is iffy. > But when I wrote that, few of us really thought that Israel would be > closing down for the chagim, and that ever minute of shul in nearly all > of chu"l is increasing medical risk. So now we're talking about invoking > heteirim to party at the peril of the medically fragile in the community. > I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the > bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this year's > leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a Simchas > Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can anyone argue > for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that psychological need for > the majority of people? On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 2:03pm GMT, R Harry Maryles replied on Areivim: > It's true that most Shuls had a pretty big gap in their weekly Kriyas > HaTorah and that many Parshios were missed. But some Shuls hae made them > up. In a few cases no Parshios were missed. For example in my son's > neighborhood of Ramat bet Shemesh which is over 90% observant, my son > did KhT every Shabbos from his balcony with a Minyan made of of all of > his neighbors within earshot. (Don't know how he arrived at calling this > Teffilah B'Tzibur, but that was his Beshas Ha'dechak Psak.) > IIUC, Doing Hakafos on ST is a Minahg of the Tzibur, not the Yachid. > It is based on what the Klal as a whole does. The celebration of > completing yearly cycle with Hakafos is therefore appropriate this year > just like every year. But only along the lines I suggested because of > the pandemic. There are cases where every parashah was leined beause the members of the minyan can't disband anyway -- like in a nursing home or on an army base. But I fear you presented a false dichotomy. Yes, leining and therefore the siyum on leining we celebrate on ST are about the tzibur. But I wouldn't assume that means the global tzibur. After all, there was even a time when annual leining wasn't a universal norm. I had presented a third option, because I had assumed a neighorhood tzibbur. With all the modern complications now that most communities have shenei batei din ba'ir, as we put it WRT the tzibbur accepting Shabbos. But whether your town, your shul, or something else, that I didn't have a position on. So as I saw it, if no minyan in town leined the whole seifer Torah betzibbur, how is that community making a siyum? Shouldn't the shul making the party include at least person completing the text being mesayeim? In any case, there are at least those three possibilities, and we only agree on ruling out the first one, the yachid. But my point on Areivim, just like the point I made here to begin with, was more about most of the minhagim for celebrating Simchas Torah are on the defensive. We lein at night. (At least most of us do.) We take out more sifrei Torah than we read from. We give way too many people aliyos. We are relying on heteirim on a slew of dinim about kavod ST and qeri'as haTorah. We need a certain level of justification for it. We don't have to just say that ST celebrates someone else's completion of the Torah -- we need to be able to argue that's true strongly enough to justify those heteirim. Or, that we need ST for our mental health strongly enough to qualify as justification. Which is an approach I am more sympathetic to than saying I am dancing in my shul with a seifer Torah to celebrate the men of Nachal Yehudah (eg) and in the senior living facilities a couple of miles outside our eiruv at Daughter of Miryam completing a cycle of leining. Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries http://www.aishdas.org/asp are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 18 05:05:52 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:05:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Is one permitted to fast on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah? Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. One is not permitted to fast on Rosh Hashanah because Rosh Hashanah is a Yom Tov. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (OC 597:1) rules that one must eat, drink and rejoice on Rosh Hashanah. Nonetheless, unlike other Yomim Tovim, one should not overindulge, lest the solemn nature of the day will be obscured. However, there were Rishonim who held that it is permissible to fast during the daytime because Rosh Hashanah is a day of teshuva. Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l said that his great-grandfather, the Beis HaLevi, would fast both days. In fact, there were those who would fast even on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah because they considered the importance of teshuva on this day to be on the level of pikuach nefesh (life threatening), which overrides the requirement to eat a Shabbos seuda. Although in practice we follow the Shulchan Aruch and do not fast on Rosh Hashanah, the Mishnah Berurah (584:5) makes a distinction between Rosh Hashanah which falls on Shabbos, and Rosh Hashanah which falls on a weekday, as follows: When Rosh Hashanah falls on a weekday, we are permitted to extend the davening into the afternoon, while if Rosh Hashanah is on Shabbos, we are required to finish davening before chatzos (halachic midday) so as not to fast past the morning. As such, if one expects their shul to finish davening on Shabbos after chatzos, it is best to drink a tea or coffee in the morning before going to shul, to avoid fasting inappropriately on Shabbos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 18 05:17:03 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:17:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Laws & Customs: Month of Tishrei during the Corona period Message-ID: For those in quarantine, davening by themselves or in outside Minyanim Please see https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/groupsioattachments/14569/76906693/102/0?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJECNKOVMCCU3ATNQ&Expires=1600431735&Signature=d1788QfnWQyWHF1xjnl7Zn59EJg%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3D%22Tishrei+During+Corona.pdf%22 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Mon Sep 21 05:50:14 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 13:50:14 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? Message-ID: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT: > Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim > we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is > problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out > sifrei Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos > given to > 12 year olds, etc... BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So while it might be that the Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah out). Note that that also means that the siyum for the year, even in a normal year, is not complete (or about to be completed) when the sifrei Torah are taken out at night, as the first hakafos take place (at latest) on the night of Simchat Torah, and yet the finishing of the yearly reading only occurs the next day. Note the reason why I say at latest is because many Sephardim (although not all) have the custom of doing seven sets of seven hakafot which mean they do hakafot on Shmini Atzeret as well (three sets on Shmini Atzeret, to correspond with the three services, three sets on Simchat Torah, to correspond with the three services, and one after Simchat Torah). > This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked > how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to > celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy. There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah, something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah. Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations and to call to others to make a feast. *And further it is the custom* in our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every place according to its custom. *And further we are accustomed* to circle with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with the lulav *and all is because of joy* *Further we are accustomed* to call all the lads to the sefer Torah, ... and in every place according to their custom. *Further we are accustomed* to finish the Torah even with a child oleh..." That is, while you appear to be saying that *because* we make a siyum on the Torah *therefore* we do all these other halachically iffy customs, even the Rema does not say this. To the extent he gives a reason, it is "because of joy", and all the customs are as a result of *that* category. Which makes sense, because making a siyum justifies a seudah being considered a seudas mitzvah (and may justify the name of Simchas Torah, instead of second day Shmini Atzeret), and there are references in the gemara that seem to justify the making of a feast for a siyum, although the derivation is not really that straightforward, nowhere does it allow any of the other behaviour that might be Halachically iffy. On the other hand, simcha is a mitzvah d'orisa on yom tov, and indeed according to Sukkah 48a " It was taught in a braita: [Devarim 16:16] "and it will be completely joyous" this is to include the night of the last day of Yom Tov [lelei yom tov acharon]" Now of course, that is referring in the Torah to Shmini Artzeret, and it is interesting that in chutz l'aretz, we seem to have taken the especially joyous obligation of that d'orisa mitzvah, and attached it to what is the night of yom tov achron for us, which in fact is only minhag avosaynu b'yadanu. But be that as it may, it seems to me that, as the Rema says, the justification for all of these minhagim is simchas yom tov, and particularly the extra simcha of the final days of yom tov, and that they are independent of one another, so that the aspects related to making a siyum on the Torah are independent of taking the sifrei Torah out, and of doing the hakafos, and of singing and dancing. And if anything, the minhag of having a siyum on completing a full yearly reading of the Torah could perhaps be seen as being caused by the obligation to create extra joy on Shmini Atzeret/Simchas Torah, and not the other way around. We have arranged our schedules so that we have the joy of completely the Torah on this day, as Torah learning is in and of itself a form of joy (see eg the introduction to the Eglei Tal), so we arrange them to coincide. > I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the > bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this > year's leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a > Simchas Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can > anyone argue for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that > psychological need for the majority of people? But again, this assumes that all the minhagim on Simchas Torah are a direct result of the siyum, which I do not believe is the case. It is important to have Simchas Yom Tov, and to do what we can to maximise simchas Yom Tov, and if the siyum part is not possible, but the other parts are, then the other parts should be done. <> And the classic justification for these heterim is that the aseh of simcha is docheh, as per the Rema. However, because we are taking about simcha that is required by the Torah, it is linked to and part and parcel with simcha with the Torah - without the Torah there would be no obligation of such simcha, so simcha that is antithetical to the Torah, ie does not encompass kavod haTorah, is not justified. Which is why I am not even convinced that it is a tzibbur versus yachid thing. Would there be a problem if a Rav, who happened to live above the shul, took out the sefrei Torah and did hakafos with them with his family around an empty shul, because he was restricted by Covid requirements to his bubble, which did not contain a minyan? I'm not sure there would. There are potential issues with leining, and even more so with making birchas haTorah on such layning, but do we consider hakafos as a dvar shebekedusha that absolutely has to have a minyan? It is post gemara, so it is not so clear it can be a dvar shebekedusha, which might need to have been instituted by the Anshei Knesset Hagadola or at least not to be post Ravina and Rav Ashi (that might also turn on whether you follow the Aruch haShulchan and the Rokach, who hold that kaddish was instituted by the Anshei Knesset HaGadola, and that is what justifies its status as a dvar shebekedusha, or whether you follow the Shibbolei Ha-Leket and the teshuvas HaGeonim which seem to suggest that the whole institution of kaddish within prayer was instituted by the Geonim (and if so, whether a takana of the Geonim is and remains binding or it does not)). <> But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as something of an obligation of the tzibbur (the tzibbur would seem to be needed in order to make sure that we are making the widow happy). So to the extent that it is dependent upon simcha, then that obligation remains, even if the minhagim of the tzibbur, ie the way the tzibbur traditionally performs such simcha, might not be possible at the present time, and hence is not an obligation. -Micha Gmar Tov Chana From doniels at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 03:16:13 2020 From: doniels at gmail.com (Danny Schoemann) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:16:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur Message-ID: . R' Aryeh Frimer asked: > Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when > Davening BiYehidut > (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but > perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future [a la > Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim. R' Akiva Miller answered: > No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head: > Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it > certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice. > Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is > mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there. In a nutshell, you can see it here on Sefaria: https://tinyurl.com/y2qgtuyx It's a Mishna in Nedirim 3:1, discussed in Talmud 23a, codified in Yoreh De'a 211 to which the Ba'er Heitev decides that as long as one said it loud enough to be heard to one's own ears, it's valid. None of the commentators along the way mention publicity. The only issue they have is "Devorim She'B'Leiv" if it's whispered or thought. Along the way I learnt: You can say it ("just kidding about the Neder stuff") any time. Those who hold you don't have to say it right before making the Neder, don't give it an expiration date - IOW once a lifetime should be sufficient. Bottom line: If it works, you can chant the "futuristic" Kol Nidrei to yourself in an undertone. CLOR. Gmar Chasima Tova - Danny, not a Rabbi by any stretch of imagination. From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Sep 17 08:56:27 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:56:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Consumer Daf HaKashrus - Spices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I normally do not send out messages with attachments, but I could not locate this online. [See for attached PDF. -micha] From the pdf file > This article is an in-depth look at a specific category of vegetables: > spices. Spices refer to aromatic vegetable products used to season or > flavor foods. Less than 2% of food consumed in the United States are > spices, but what a difference that 2% makes! Without spices, all food > would be bland and unappetizing. > As mentioned, there are many spices exported by Israel, which create a > whole host of potential kashrus issues. All uncertified Israeli spices > present serious kashrus challenges in the form of tevel and shemitah. A > Mashgiach visiting a spice plant must be on the lookout for this. Because > of the aromatic and fragrant nature of spices, these spices will not > be batel in a mixture, as they are avida l'taama, added to mixtures > for taste, and anything which is added to a mixture for taste does not > become batel. This halachah is paskened by Rema in Yoreh Deah 98:8, > from the Gemara (Beitza 38b, Chulin 6a). See the attachment for much more. From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Sep 22 05:50:20 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:50:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Cheerios and Pas Yisroel Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Can one eat Cheerios during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva (ten days from Rosh Hashana to Yom Kippur) or Shabbos and Yom Tov for those who only eat Pas Yisroel on those days? What about other breakfast cereals? Must they be Pas Yisroel? A. There are differing opinions as to whether Cheerios is considered pas. The OU poskim do not consider it pas, because of the size of the individual pieces and the manner in which it is made. Likewise, wheat flake cereals are not considered ?bread-like? and therefore do not need to be pas Yisroel. Corn and Rice Cereals are, by definition, not bread items. See our Pas Yisroel List ? 5781 at OUKosher.org for OU certified Pas Yisroel brands and products. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 14:09:36 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200922210936.GD19252@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 11:36:29PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was > supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated > prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in > the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it? The SA often just echoes Chazal when the case is considered theoretical. So, if he didn't see people really trying to say Shema in la'az, the Mechaber wouldn't deal with the practical problems of trying to do so and just note that hypothetically, Chazal said it was mutar. > He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators > lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are > incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text > holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to > adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists? Or maybe just the right shade for each instance. If you get too nitpicky, you'll note that two different speakers of the same language have different memories and associations with many of their different words, and don't have bidiyuq the same things in mind when using them. Exact precision is a rabbit's hole to fall down. The question is defining "exact enough". Maybe exact enough to relay one out of multiple peshatim? WRT semitic languages, there are going to be much closer matches. So, davening in Aramaic seems much more doable than davening in a Romantic or Germanic language. > According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the > Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word > "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those > languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's > satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty > AND Was/Is/WillBe? Or maybe Moshe translated to a phrase. Or maybe, because Moshe knew which connotation of the sheim was primary in each context, he was able to pick the right translation for each. > In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my > translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3: ... > 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana, > Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe > (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written > in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167. But he pointedly does NOT say that it's a good idea even if it's not a a safeiq. So it would seem translations are only good enough when there is no better way to deal with the situation. You're comparing what he says here lekhat-chilah with his solution for a bedi'eved. BTW, I think berikh Rachmana is about fulfilling the purpose of the berachah without trying to fulfill Chazal's coinage. Like if we said you would be be meqabel ol Malkhus Shamayim by saying Shema in English, but not yotzei the actual mitzvah of Q"Sh. Because there is no "atah", and "of this bread" isn't "Who Brings bread out of the earth". It's not even a close paraphrase, never mind translation. It's not even an exactness of translation issue. Like, what if a native Hebrew speaker followed AhS OC 202 by saying "Barukh haRachaman Adon Melekh haOlam vehalachmaniah hazot". He would also avoid the risk of berakhaha levatalah and also that of the geneivah-like behavior of eating without a berakhah. > Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the > entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did > he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude > someone from a partial translation.... Why? Maybe someone would think "If I get a perfect enough translation just until 'al levavekha' or just the first pereq, at least he would be yotzei deOraisa." And SE is a different kind of problem than Shema, since its core is baqashos, not miqra. > for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:[1]72, > where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have > assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana, > "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and > established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common > among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ... > And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe, > whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include > concepts like "Was and Is and Will Be". BUT... only for some of the dinim of Sheimos. Not translations of tefillos. As you started your discussion of RMF -- he agrees with the AhS that such translations don't exist. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, http://www.aishdas.org/asp others come to love him very naturally, and Author: Widen Your Tent he does not need even a speck of flattery. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 14:23:23 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:23:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:50:14PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot > HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So while it might be that the > Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to > come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein > and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think > it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah > out).... I was taught the same line of reasoning besheim haGra. (I emailed RSMandel to double-check if it was from him, and did he have the mar'eh maqom. Got impatient holding off this reply for an answer.) >> This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked >> how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to >> celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy. > There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah, > something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and > Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be > related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the > way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah. > Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman > 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs: > > "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and > make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are > accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations > and to call to others to make a feast. *And further it is the custom* in > our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the > sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every > place according to its custom. *And further we are accustomed* to circle > with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with > the lulav *and all is because of joy*..." The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah shel torah* venohagim...") And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah". And since the Rama told you the simchah in question is that of the siyum, I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum, and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a community that year. >> Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either >> way. > But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as > something of an obligation of the tzibbur... Yes, but we don't take the sifrei Torah out at night for any other yom tov. It's not "just" simchas YT. So the question is whether I can invoke sharing in *his* simchah over finishing the Torah to participate. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search http://www.aishdas.org/asp of a spiritual experience. You are a Author: Widen Your Tent spiritual being immersed in a human - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From JRich at Segalco.com Tue Sep 22 16:57:21 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:57:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] forms of teshuvah Message-ID: From R' Gil Student: Medieval Ashkenazic authorities prescribed a variety of strong acts of self-induced suffering as part of the teshuvah process, including long-term fasting, lashes, exile and more. Rabbeinu Peretz (Gloss to Semak, no. 53) lists four kinds of teshuvah: 1) teshuvas charatah, in which you regret the sin; 2) teshuvas ha-geder, in which you set additional boundaries for yourself to avoid sinning in the future; 3) teshuvas ha-kasuv, in which you undergo the punishment listed in the Torah for your sin; 4) teshuvas ha-mishkal, in which you inflict yourself with pain corresponding to the amount of pleasure you enjoyed with your sin. Of these four, the first is what we consider standard teshuvah and the second is going above and beyond. The third and fourth are not - and should not be - practiced today. The Vilna Gaon's brother (Ma'alos Ha-Torah, introduction) makes clear that we cannot undergo these harsh forms of teshuvah in our time (his time, even more so in our time) and emerge physically and religiously healthy. Instead, he recommends intense Torah study. Me- what is the nature of the paradigm change claimed by the Ma'alos Ha-Torah? Gct 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 Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Tue Sep 22 15:25:17 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:25:17 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB wrote: <> Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is: ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the Torah" That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is because of the custom of making of completing the Torah. So maybe you should argue that *this* year Simchas Torah should not be called Simchas Torah, but Shmini Atzeres sheni! He does not say, as you have said "the simcha is that of completing the Torah*. << And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah".>> Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag. Most of the prohibitions however (such as not taking the sifrei Torah out for no reason, reading over and over, calling up ketanim) are because of kavod haTorah, ie kavod haTorah is the counterweight reason *not* to do these minhagim. However similar to the idea of oseh docheh lo ta'aseh, the mitzvah of simcha is able push aside certain kevod haTorah restrictions in certain circumstances, but clearly not in ones that are in fact a disgrace to the Torah, but only ones that enhance the simcha of the Torah. There is no reason for a siyum to push aside prohibitions relating to kavod haTorah. <> But he didn't he told you that is why the day has that name, not that the simcha in question is the siyum. All the different minhagim, including, but not limited to, having the siyum, are because of simcha. << I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum, and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a community that year.>> Then he need not have listed them as "v'od nehagu" etc <> But the gemora learns the simcha for yom tov acharon shel chag out of a separate pasuk to the psukim that we learn it for Sukkos. Why would Shmini Atzeres need its only special pasuk with its own special limud, why does the Torah not combine it with the simcha learnt out for sukkos? The mishna understands that one is obligated in the same way just like the seven days of sukkos so why are they not combined in the Torah? The logical answer is because there is something somewhat different about the nature of this simcha (and in fact one might be tempted to darshen the ach, not as the gemora does to exclude the first night of sukkos, but to say that it is a day of simcha only, not simcha and sukkah and arba minim, but only simcha). The custom, and the Rema makes it very clear that it is a custom, of making the siyum is very late, given that we know that a three year cycle was in existence for many years, and yet the descriptions of what was going on on Simchas Torah well predate the universality of the one year cycle (descriptions amongst the Geonim, inter alia). The fundamental mitzvah on Shmini Atzeres/Simchas Torah is therefore ach sameach! The interesting question is why in chutz l'aretz, other than amongst those Sefardim who start the hakafot on Shmini Artzeres, we do *not* take the sifrei Torah out on Shmini Atzeres. However, to the extent that one is sitting in the sukkah on Shmini Artzeret, and it is still thereby linked to sukkos, then maybe it makes sense that in chutz l'aretz, the day that is ach sameach, with no link to what went before, is Simchas Torah, despite it only being yom tov sheini shel golios. <> But only if you assume the linkage that, against the explicit language of the Rema, the cause of all the other minhagim is the siyum, including where they are otherwise in violation of kevod haTorah, rather than that the special simcha due to the special pasuk is the cause of all the minhagim including the siyum. GCT! -Micha Regards Chana From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 03:12:16 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 06:12:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? Message-ID: . Several posters referenced the Rama, which R"n Chana Luntz translated as: > The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they > rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of > the Torah Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to our private learning of the parshios, such as those who learned the parsha each week by reading it themselves from a chumash while the shuls were closed? Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv, but by taking the time and effort to actually mouth every single word myself (rather than just listen to the kriah and let my mind dwell on this pasuk and that pasuk), I feel that my learning of Chumash this year was considerably better than in years past, and I'll have no problem celebrating that, to whatever extent our rav allows. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 23 05:51:56 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 12:51:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Medicine on Yom Kippur Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May a person who is ill, but is not in mortal danger (choleh she?ein bo sakana) consume unsweetened medicine on Yom Kippur? A. This is the subject of a dispute between the Acharonim. According to Shaagas Aryeh (75-76), one is not permitted to take medicine on Yom Kippur. Even though medicine is not a ?food?, and the prohibition to consume medicine is Rabbinic in nature ? which is normally waived for people who are ill, nonetheless, by swallowing the pill , the individual demonstrates that he or she considers it as food, and it is therefore forbidden on Yom Kippur. K?sav Sofer (OC 111) strongly disagrees and maintains that consuming medicine when ill does not demonstrate that it is a food item, and therefore medicine may be swallowed on Yom Kippur. Igros Moshe (OC 111:91) concurs with this ruling as well. If a person must drink water to swallow a pill, contemporary poskim recommend adding a bitter substance to water, such as a significant amount of lemon juice or vinegar, so that the water has a very unpleasant taste. This was the opinion of Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul, (Ohr L?Tziyon, IV 15:8), Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (Ashrei Ha?Ish III 23:230) and Rav Nissim Karelitz (Chut HaShani, Yom Kippur p. 145). If the pill is sweet, it is considered to be a food independently of its medicinal properties. In such instances, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach advised that the pill should be wrapped in a tissue and swallowed in that manner (Shemira Shabbos KeHilchasa 39:8; Halichos Shlomo, Yom HaKippurim 5:8). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 11:23:34 2020 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 14:23:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20200923182334.GA22665@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:25:17PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing >> the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah >> shel torah* venohagim...") > Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is: ... > Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah > because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the > Torah" > That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is > because of the custom of making of completing the Torah.... Because "shesimeichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh legamrah shel Torah". The simchah and making the mishteh are for the completion of the Torah. And thus the name of the holiday reflects that simchah. ... > Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha > on yom tov acharon shel chag. But the Rama doesn't say simchas YT, just "mishum simchah". OTOH, as we saw, the Rama opens by speaking of the simchah and mishteh of completing the Torah. So, if he just says "simchah" afterwards, why would I think it is anything but the "semeichin ... legamra shel Torah" already brought into the discussion? You're assuming the Rama changes topics without telling us. (Of course, I didn't think any of this out before my first post. I just read the sources, not thinking about other possibilities until it became a discussion. But I can't say that you convinced me yet that I brought too many unconscious assumptions to the table, that your read is comparably viable.) On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 06:12:16AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public > laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to > our private learning of the parshios... It refers to the completion that occured that morning, which was indeed leining. The AhS ad loc says the party is traditionally paid for with pledges by the Chasanim. Not, as I see done today, that the qiddush the next two Shabbosos are. > Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv... A siyum is a siyum. People make a siyum on a mesechtes gemara that they had no particular chiyuv to learn over learning something else. I just don't think we were mesaymim what the minhagim were established to celebrate. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. http://www.aishdas.org/asp If you want time, you must make it. Author: Widen Your Tent - Charles Buxton - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF From Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Wed Sep 23 15:37:44 2020 From: Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 23:37:44 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: > Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have > simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag. And RMB replied: <> I suppose the reason it seems to me obvious that mishum simcha, means the simcha of Yom Tov, is because: a) when the poskim say something is meshum simcha in the context of yom tov, they mean the mitzvah of simcha - for example: the Levush and the Bach (and numerous others, I believe) hold that the hakafos of the lulav during sukkos is mishum simcha (or at least the hakafos in the Beis HaMikdash, come directly out of the pasuk mandating simcha, and we then do them as a zecher. In that context, various rishonim and achronim discuss whether an avel is permitted to do hakafos, ie whether the simcha of the day pushes of the fact that a avel is forbidden from simcha. And in all these discussions, when they talk about simcha or mishum simcha, simchas Yom Tov is understood. b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas Torah. But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion would need to be had. c) On the other hand, the obligation to have a seudas mitzvah on finishing learning comes from a statement in gemora shabbas (118b-119a) where Abaye says: he should be rewarded because whenever he heard about a tzurba d'rabanan finishing a mesechta, he would make a yom tov for the Rabbis, which is understood to mean a seudas mitzvah. This is listed as part of a whole list of various Amoraim stating what it is that they believe they should get a special reward for, including being careful in known mitzvos (such a tefillin and tzitzis, and three meals on shabbas) and what are identified as good minhagim (such as not going daled amos with his head uncovered). It is really not clear into which category Abaye's statement falls. And while the Rema in Yore Deah siman 246, si'if 26 does say that " when one finishes a mesechet it is a mitzvah to rejoice and to make a feast, and it is called a seudas mitzvah" - to hang everything we do on Simchas Torah on this one statement in the gemora seems like a breathtaking chiddush. And think about it this way. If I were to finish a mesechta, here today, does that mean I can take the sifrei Torah out of the aron, dance around with them, call up some children (and some people together at once, making the brachos at once), read multiple times, take the sifrei Torah out into the street, (and, if it was shabbas, dance even if in general I held that dancing on shabbas is not permitted, as per the Shulchan Aruch?). Given that the essential siyum that is described in the gemora and referred to by the Rema is on a mesechet in Shas, then all this should be permissible on any day of the week, not just Simchas Torah. Because mai nafka minah. So I suppose it seems to me obvious that all the heterim the Rema refers to cannot be because of the simcha of the siyum, especially as the heterim were in place before the siyum was necessarily happening, historically, which again seems to suggest that the one does not cause the other. I do see that in fact the Aruch HaShulchan seems to support you, as in Orech Chaim siman 669 si'if 2 he says in the middle of the piece: "And also we are accustomed that two are called up together and bless, and even though it is not correct in any event because of the joy of the siyum they do so ." - whereas I would have thought he should say the joy of Yom Tov. So the Aruch HaShulchan would seem to be supporting your position. But still, I cannot see, if the Aruch HaShulchan is saying this, how he can be correct, because the consequences must surely be that any time there is a siyum, such a heter would then be permissible, or at least tolerable. I just can't see how this is right. I cannot see how, even if the whole of klal yisrael this year decided that we were going to have a siyum on kriyas hatorah when we had had a full year since last lockdown (ie assuming a vaccine became widely available and was effective), somewhere in the middle of the year, it would it be mutar as part of holding that siyum on krias haTorah on an ordinary Shabbat, to have the usual Simchas Torah heterim. According to you it would be, but I cannot see that this can be right, and I struggle to believe the Rema would authorise it were he here today. <> Not really. Given that mishum simcha in the context of a Yom Tov is logically understood to mean simchas yom tov, without the modifier, the Rema is just explaining in greater detail why we do everything we do before. That *includes* holding the completion of the krias hatorah cycle on Simchas Torah. ie we arrange to have the siyum on Simchas Torah, *because* of the nature of Simchas Torah, not that Simchas Torah is the way it is because of the siyum of finishing the reading cycle. -Micha Gmar Tov Chana From zev at sero.name Wed Sep 23 17:48:28 2020 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah? In-Reply-To: <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <001801d69015$c055a6c0$4100f440$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200922212323.GE19252@aishdas.org> <004301d6912f$40d464c0$c27d2e40$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20200923181836.GA16347@aishdas.org> <000001d691fa$285fd930$791f8b90$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: On 23/9/20 6:37 pm, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: > b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an > avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas > Torah. But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion > would need to be had. Last year, when I was an avel, I was told that for Hoshanos I should not go around at all, and should lend my arba minim to someone else who hasn't got them, and have him go around in my place. (Or at least that's how I understood it; it may be that lending the arba minim was simply a suggestion to do someone a chesed, since I wasn't using them.) For Simchas Torah I was told that I could go around with the group, but should not hold a sefer torah while doing so; after the hakafa I could take a sefer and dance with it. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781 zev at sero.name "May this year and its curses end May a new year and its blessings begin" From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Sep 25 05:07:22 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 12:07:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?What_foods_should_one_eat_at_the_seuda_?= =?windows-1252?q?ha=92mafsekes_=28last_meal=29_on_erev_Yom_Kippur=3F?= Message-ID: Please see https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/foods-one-eat-seuda-hamafsekes-last-meal-erev-yom-kippur/?category=yom-kippur&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shsh%20Haazinu%205781%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=32573763&spUserID=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&spJobID=1784317155&spReportId=MTc4NDMxNzE1NQS2 What foods should one eat at the seuda ha?mafsekes (last meal) on erev Yom Kippur? | OU Kosher Certification Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 608:4) writes that on erev Yom Kippur, one should eat light foods that are easily digestible, so one will be able to daven on Yom Kippur with proper concentration. There is a common custom to dip challah in honey. Mishnah... oukosher.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emteitz at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 13:32:06 2020 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 16:32:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What will be with Simchas Torah Message-ID: The comment was made, "Is this "completion of the Torah" necessarily referring to the public laining in shul each Shabbos morning? Can it possibly refer just as well to our private learning of the parshios, such as those who learned the parsha each week by reading it themselves from a chumash while the shuls were closed? Granted that such learning was not an actual chiyuv, . . ." It isn't? See OC 385:1. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Sep 29 05:08:16 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:08:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is an Esrog Muktza on Shabbos Message-ID: >From today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. This year, the first day of Sukkos is Shabbos, and there is no mitzvah of lulav and esrog. Can I show my neighbor my beautiful esrog, or is it muktza? Q. Shulchan Aruch (OC 658:2) writes that a lulav is muktzah on Shabbos. Since there is no mitzvah of lulav and esrog on Shabbos, a lulav serves no purpose, and it is mukztah like other tree branches. However, an esrog may be moved, since it has a function; one may smell the fruit. (There is a dispute if the beracha on fragrances is recited when smelling an esrog on Sukkos, since the primary function of an esrog on Sukkos is for the mitzvah of lulav and esrog and not for fragrance. To avoid the uncertainty of reciting a beracha, the Shulchan Aruch recommends not smelling an esrog on Sukkos. Nonetheless the Mishnah Berurah (658:5) writes there is no restriction to smell an esrog on Shabbos and recite a beracha, because there is no mitzvah on that day.) Since, it has a function, it is not muktza, and it may be moved for any purpose. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt?l (Shmiras Shabbos K?Hilchaso 22: note 62) writes that today, since people are protective of their esrogim and will not pass them around to be smelled, they are categorized as ?muktza machmas chisaron kis? (expensive or delicate items that are generally stored in a safe location), which may not be moved for any reason on Shabbos. The Aruch Hashulchan (OC 308:17) appears to rule this way as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 03:05:03 2020 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 06:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: . I have long been bothered by why we cannot start or stop Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/geshem without a formal announcement , yet no announcements at all are required for starting and stopping any of the other changes to our tefilos. This past spring, in Avodah 38:24, I quoted a teshuva from Rav Hershel Schachter, where he tackled this question. (It is titled "Piskei Corona #9: Hallel on Pesach Night and Tefillas Tal". "Our Rav" refers to Rav JB Soloveitchik z"l; the parentheses are Rav Schachter's.) > There is a big difference between She'eila (V'sen Tal Umatar > Livracha) and Hazkara (Mashiv Haruach). See what I wrote in > the name of our Rav in MiPeninei HaRav (section Tefila, number > 5), that changing the descriptions of Hashem (from Mashiv > Haruach to Morid Hatal) requires Reshus Hatzibur, and an > individual is not allowed to make changes on his own. But I still don't understand what makes Mashiv Haruach so unusual. According to Rav Schachter's logic, shouldn't we also need Reshus Hatzibur to change the description of Hashem between HaKeil HaKadosh and HaMelech HaKadosh? Moreover, why is this Reshus Hatzibur required *every* *single* *time* that we start or stop Mashiv Haruach? Why isn't it sufficient that Chazal ordained that we start it every year on Shmini Atzeres, and stop it every year on Pesach? I once questioned how our Yom Tovim have any d'Oraisa status at all: If there's no Beis Din to declare that a certain day was Rosh Chodesh Tishrei, then where does Yom Kippur's status come from? The answer I got (Eliyahu Kitov, The Book of Our Heritage, v 1 pg 230) was that Hillel's beis din was mekadesh in *advance* all future Roshei Chadashim that would be calculated according to his rules. According to this reasoning, the required Reshus Hatzibur doesn't have to come from the gabbai or the chazan. It comes from Chazal, who ordained this schedule of changes to the Amidah, so when the calendar says to make a change, my requirement to do so comes automatically, whether I'm in shul or not, just like for all the other changes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at Segalco.com Wed Sep 30 12:02:34 2020 From: JRich at Segalco.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:02:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] fear of death Message-ID: Sheldon Solomon is a social psychologist at Skidmore College. He earned his B.A. from Franklin and Marshall College and his doctoral degree from the University of Kansas. He is best known for developing terror management theory, along with Jeff Greenberg and Tom Pyszczynski which is concerned with how humans deal with their own sense of mortality Sheldon Solomon - "I feel like there's a real sense in which doing these studies and writing books and lecturing has been my way of avoiding directly confronting my anxieties by turning it (me - fear of death) into an intellectual exercise" [Me - sounds like it could've been said by R'Chaim] Is this a common approach in orthodox circles Gmar tov 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 llevine at stevens.edu Wed Sep 30 06:10:27 2020 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Prof. L. Levine) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:10:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Question for Today's Times Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May one fulfill the mitzvah of picking up their lulav and esrog while wearing gloves? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 651:7) writes that if a person wrapped a cloth around their hand and picked up the lulav, some say one has not fulfilled the mitzvah. This is because the cloth is a chatzitza (barrier) between the hand and the lulav. The Mishnah Berurah (651:33) writes that the same applies if one is wearing gloves. He also explains that the reason Shulchan Aruch writes ?some say?, is because this is a matter of dispute among Rishonim. The opinion of the Ran is that if one wrapped their hands with cloth or put on gloves, the cloth is viewed as an extension of one?s hand, and as such, it is not a barrier. Therefore, if one did pick up the lulav while wearing gloves, the lulav should be lifted again to fulfill the mitzvah in accordance with those who view the glove as a chatziza. However, a new beracha would not be said because the mitzvah was already fulfilled according to the Ran. One who must wear gloves in shul should recite the berachos and shake the lulav at home before coming to shul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: