BAISTEFILA Digest 1
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) How it is done.
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
2) RE: 3 forwarded messages... (fwd)
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
----__ListProc__NextPart__892008063446004031
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_1"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_1"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_1
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 12:23:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: How it is done.
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
What happens next?
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_1
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 22:58:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: Yosef & Shoshana Bechhofer
Subject: RE: 3 forwarded messages... (fwd)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 16:38:57 -0600
From: asheffey@smgusa.com
To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Subject: RE: 3 forwarded messages...
An illustrative point to the discussion: I was learning Maseches Sukkah
in R' Bechoffer's kollel and came across the sugyah which deals with
circular Sukkahs. It was puzzling that in the entire discussion there
was no mention of Pi; Chazal were simply using 3 as the basis of their
equations. R' Bechoffer explained Pi's absence by way of a G"RA which
notes a k'rah-k'siv in a posuk which deals with circles, and dividing the
gematriyah of the k'rah by the k'siv results in Pi. Therefore, R'
Bechoffer noted, the G"RA proved that Chazal knew about more exact
measurements, but didn't feel it necessary to use them. The same
reasoning can be applied to shiurim, such as a **K**'zayis (emphasis on
the prefix). The Torah was not given to people with atomic clocks or
Bureaus of National Standards, and H"BH gave us general measurements to
follow. Natural manifestations of shiurim were given as the standards to
**estimate** these measurements (k'dai achilas pras or "shalom aleichem
rebi", for example). L'aniyas da'asi, I would guess that the more recent
emphasis on exact (and larger) shiurim is an effect of living in a more
'exact' world, rather than a "truer" definition (although this guess
would not apply to the Chazon Ish, whom determined his larger shiurim by
darshening the p'sukim l'gabay the miraglim). At the same time, it could
merely be an outgrowth of sofek - i.e., "we don't know, so let's be
yotzay kol hada'os and go large".
One more illustrative example: a rav recently spoke here in Chicago and
mentioned that certain things in Halachah always bothered him, until he
realized how natural they were. His example was sha'os z'maniyos. We
shvitz over determining when chatzos is during the day, when shkiyah is,
etc. Instead of out "advanced" digital watches, use a sundial divided
into twelve equal parts and there are no questions!
----------
From: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu[SMTP:MIME @INTERNET
{sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu}]
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 2:14 PM
To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Subject: 3 forwarded messages...
<>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 18:09:05 +0200 (IDT)
From: Emanuel Feldman
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
Subject: Re: 3 forwarded messages...
For the record, the issue in which Dr Ch Soloveitchik's article appeared
("Rupture & Reconstruction")was 28:4, Summer 1994. Copies are hard to
come
by, but Tradition can be written to at RCA office in NY - 275 7th Aave
NYC 10001. If they are unhelpful, only recourse for cc's is probably a
good library - or a good friend who had the foresight to subscribe to
Trad. Commercial message: Trad can be subscribed to at above address.
It
is quarterly, and is a bargain, says the editor, at 20.00 per year.
ef
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 11:50:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Anthony Fiorino
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
Subject: of eggs and olives . . .
I would be interested in knowing if anyone has looked historically at the
evolution of converting Talmudic measures to specific modern quantities
(ounces, seconds, or whatever). Exactly when in the responsa literature
did this become prominent - with the Chazon Ish or much earlier? I've
never personally surveyed the topic but I suspect the whole phenomenon of
rigid quantification (and the consequence of quantifying frumkeit on the
basis of to which shita one adheres) is fairly recent. If so, then one
might conclude that we are more obsessive about measurements than our
forefathers not because we read more books/pay more attention to our
books, but rather because the books we read are more concerned with these
issues. Of course, it goes without saying that the popular Anglo-English
press is obsessive about specific measurements, and large segment of
contemporary Orthodoxy is clearly under the influence of these basic
halachic "how-to" manuals. On this topic, it was related to me by a
cousin of Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg who spent a seder with him, that
at
the seder some of his talmidim were busy shoving their mouths full of
matza in order to consume it within 2 minutes or whatever, and he
expressed to them that they should stop doing so and act like menschen.
Long before Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik's article appeared, there was a
series of articles in Moment magazine, I believe, entitled "If Orthodoxy
is the answer, what is the question" - one of the articles, I think by
David Singer, addressed this issue (his term was "folk religion" and his
title was something like "of eggs and olives"). I have the complete
reference at home somewhere, if anyone's interested.
-Eitan
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=
Eitan Fiorino, M.D., Ph.D.
Department of Dermatology
University of Pennsylvania Medical Center
Philadelphia, PA 19104
email: afiorino@mail.med.upenn.edu, fiorino@alum.mit.edu
homepage: http://mail.med.upenn.edu/~afiorino
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 13:03:26 -0400
From: cbrown@bestware.com
To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Subject: for list
It seems to me that Dr. Soloveitchik's thesis was already anticipated by
the Rav zt"l. In Shiurim l'Zecher Avi Mori there is an essya outlining
two
types of mesorah. The Rav develops the idea that there is a mesorah that
is developed through talmud Torah - debate, evidence, clarification (what
Dr. Soloveitchik would call 'textual'). There is however a mesorah that
operates independently which is not subject to proof or argument (what
Dr.
Soloveitchik would call 'mimetic', but which actually goes beyond that).
This is the context of the Rav's famous citation of the Beis HaLevi that
all the evidence in the world would not convince him to wear 'techeilet'
because it belongs to the second type of mesorah rather than the first.
The Rav's focus is on the 'cheftza' (or epistemology - the Rav would
probably be satisfied with either term) of mesorah - the different
catagories the halachot themselves fall into. The problem emerges in
figuring out the catagories, e.g. the issue of kezayit measurement - do
we assume certain measurements to be true because of mesorah irrespective
of evidence to the contrary, or is this too part of the the first type of
mesorah that is subject to proof and debate? Dr. Soloveitchik's chiddush
is applying this to sociology - the orthodox world now tends to classify
everything as suject to proof/debate/analysis through text or otherwise
and
forgetting about the second equally legitimate type of mesorah.
A note on the canonization of the Haggadah - R' Kasher's Haggadah
Shleimah
is a study of exactly that - the development of the haggadah as a text
and
its transformation through the generations (i.e. from Mishna to geonim).
-Chaim B.
*******************************************
SMG Marketing Group, Inc.
875 N. Michigan, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL. 60611
Phone: (800) 678-3026
Fax: (312) 642-3597
Internet: smginfo@smgusa.com
Homepage: http://www.smgusa.com
********************************************
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_1--
----__ListProc__NextPart__892008063446004031--
From baistefila@shamash.org Thu Apr 9 00:01:06 1998
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 00:01:05 EDT
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
From: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: BAISTEFILA digest 2
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.05 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart__892094465446047232"
----__ListProc__NextPart__892094465446047232
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BAISTEFILA Digest 2
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Shiurin (fwd)
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
2) Lubavitch again.
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
3) Re: Shiurin (fwd)
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
4) Add to my post on List!!! (fwd)
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
5) re: Shiurim
by Ken Miller
6) list BAISTEFILA: List Message Rejected (fwd)
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
7) Pidyon HaBen
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
8) FW: Shiurim
by asheffey@smgusa.com
9) RE: Lubavitch again.
by Ken Miller
10) Moderation/Supervision
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
----__ListProc__NextPart__892094465446047232
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_2"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_2"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_2
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 09:24:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Shiurin (fwd)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I believe i subscribed everyone successfully to baistefila this morning.
If you receive the welcome message, and at 12:01 a.m. tomorrow morning EDT
you receive a digest of all today's forwarded messages (or individual
messages, if that is how you have it configured), we are in business.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 08:14:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mordechai Torczyner
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
Subject: Shiurin
> From: asheffey@smgusa.com
> An illustrative point to the discussion: I was learning Maseches Sukkah
> in R' Bechoffer's kollel and came across the sugyah which deals with
> circular Sukkahs. It was puzzling that in the entire discussion there
> was no mention of Pi; Chazal were simply using 3 as the basis of their
> equations. R' Bechoffer explained Pi's absence by way of a G"RA which
> notes a k'rah-k'siv in a posuk which deals with circles, and dividing the
> gematriyah of the k'rah by the k'siv results in Pi. Therefore, R'
> Bechoffer noted, the G"RA proved that Chazal knew about more exact
> measurements, but didn't feel it necessary to use them. The same
> reasoning can be applied to shiurim, such as a **K**'zayis (emphasis on
> the prefix). The Torah was not given to people with atomic clocks or
> Bureaus of National Standards, and H"BH gave us general measurements to
> follow. Natural manifestations of shiurim were given as the standards to
> **estimate** these measurements (k'dai achilas pras or "shalom aleichem
> rebi", for example). L'aniyas da'asi, I would guess that the more recent
> emphasis on exact (and larger) shiurim is an effect of living in a more
> 'exact' world, rather than a "truer" definition (although this guess
> would not apply to the Chazon Ish, whom determined his larger shiurim by
> darshening the p'sukim l'gabay the miraglim). At the same time, it could
> merely be an outgrowth of sofek - i.e., "we don't know, so let's be
> yotzay kol hada'os and go large".
The Steipler suggested a different reason for the use of varying measures
and "natural manifestations of shiurim."
In his Shiurin de'Oraysa, especially in Anaf 11 and 13, he describes a
system in which variable measures were used for measures _intended_ to
vary over time. According to the Steipler, backed up by a Sefer haEshkol
125b-126a which cites Rav Sherira Gaon, for such Shiurim we say "HaKol
Lefi Daato Shel Ro'eh."
For unvarying shiurim, though, the Steipler says that the measures would
be absolute. His example is 40-Seah for a Mikvah.
One of the interesting twists in his view is that he argues that for
anyone who follows the Masorah-shiur, that is fine, even where one lives
in a land of different-sized produce. It is only when one takes the time
to re-measure (as the Tzlach did, in Pesachim 116b, in what I think was
one of the catalysts of the whole "re-making of Shiurin" movement) that
one is bound to a new standard.
Shades of this view (that certain Shiurim were stated in a way which
leaves them open to variation, and others were not) might be seen in Igros
Moshe EH II 3:2:2, dealing with the difference between the non-varying
standards of a Tereifah, and the varying (lefi Rav Moshe) standards of
prostate surgery.
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEBSHAS! http://www.virtual.co.il/torah/webshas & Leave the Keywords at Home
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_2
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 11:58:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Lubavitch again.
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Well, to prove my Uncle Immanuel's response to Rabbi Keller misguided,
there is a full page ad today in The New York Times from this fellow
Springer (perhaps the "normative" Lubavitchers should renounce him and
call his religion "Springeravitch") In honor of the Rebbe's birthday (I
thought it was yesterday) with a Yechi and many other objectionable
characteristics and statements. It reminds me of Unification Church ads.
Perhaps someone would be so kind as to scan it.
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_2
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 15:08:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Shiurin (fwd)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 13:06:14 -0400
From: cbrown@bestware.com
To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Subject: Re: Shiurin (fwd)
1)FYI: In one of the last two Torah U'Mada journals there was an article on
lack of precision of many shiurim; i.e. even when a shiur is defined it
leaves room for variance.
2) I think it is safe to say that Chazal indeed were ignorant of Pi as well
as many other mathematical formula. In fact the Rishonim display genius at
solving problems that we now consider basic math, for example many times
Rashi will do the following - 123 divided by 5 will be treated as 100
divided by 5 and then 20 divided by 5 etc. to avoid "carrying"! The
examples are too numerous to cite. Chazal were not scientists or
mathematicians - which in no way diminishes their stature as being what
they were - namely, Chazal.
3) regarding the Steipler's suggestion that the act of measurement itself
demonstrates a lack of reliance on mesorah and therefore obligates a
different standard - I guess ignorance is bliss!
-Chaim B.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_2
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 15:10:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Add to my post on List!!! (fwd)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 13:40:37 -0400
From: cbrown@bestware.com
To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Subject: Addendum to previous e-mail
Re: measurements - For those learning inyana d'yoma try going through
Tos. Pesachim 109a or the Rashi on the sugya (I gave up miday through); we
don't do math this way anymore!
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_2
Message-ID: <4CAE1408EC88D1118CC00060971BEF4805A14A@smtp.datacorinc.com>
From: Ken Miller
To: "'baistefila@shamash.org'"
Subject: re: Shiurim
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 15:13:37 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
> asheffey@smgusa.com wrote:
>
<<< The same reasoning can be applied to shiurim, such as a **K**'zayis
(emphasis on the prefix). The Torah was not given to people with atomic
clocks or Bureaus of National Standards, and H"BH gave us general
measurements to follow. Natural manifestations of shiurim were given as
the standards to **estimate** these measurements (k'dai achilas pras or
"shalom aleichem rebi", for example). >>>
I think this is a mistranslation of the "K" prefix. It is meant to
compare [from this food to that olive], not to approximate. I bring
evidence from a Mishna (I don't remember exactly where, but probably in
Mikvaos - I must've heard it a dozen times in various shiva homes) that
if a mikva contains *exactly* 40 seah of water, then two people can dunk
at the same time, but if they go one after the other, then the second
person's tevila will be invalid because the droplets which clung to the
first person are no longer in the mikva, and therefore the second person
toveled in LESS than 40 seah. Talk about splitting hairs!!!
I have no idea how the ancients were able to measure the volume of the
mikva to such great accuracy, but I do suspect that they were indeed
able to do so. (The reason I suspect this is that I am often amazed by
the very accurate astonomical calculations of the ancient Greeks and
others.) Another example is that the techum Shabbos is 2000 amos, but
under certain conditions (and/or according to certain opinions) this
changes to 2050 amos. This is a difference of 2.5%, which is much
smaller than the kezayis nitpicking that the mimetic school complains
about. Come on now, if someone walks 2000 amos, how will he really know
whether or not he's gone over 2050?
On the other hand, there were other cases where Chazal specifically
allowed approximations. I am thinking of counting for a minyan, where
some (sorry, I don't remember who) held that it is enough if the group
"looks like" ten people. (This was followed by a machlokes over whether
this means that the people are spread out (so that they cover a large
area like ten would) or are packed tightly together (so that they are
difficult to count but it looks like ten) but that's another thread.)
He also wrote:
<<< L'aniyas da'asi, I would guess that the more recent emphasis on
exact (and larger) shiurim is an effect of living in a more 'exact'
world, rather than a "truer" definition >>> ... <<< His example was
sha'os z'maniyos. We shvitz over determining when chatzos is during the
day, when shkiyah is, etc. Instead of out "advanced" digital watches,
use a sundial divided
> into twelve equal parts and there are no questions! >>>
>
This is very insightful. His distinction between "exact" and "true"
reminds me of a comment I once heard. Someone asked: "Assuming that they
are both set to the correct time, which is more precise, a digital watch
with a digital readout, or an analog watch with a sweeping second hand?"
Most people would choose the digital watch, but he said that the digital
watch shows the exact time only at the beginning of each second, whereas
the analog *always* shows the exact time.
Akiva Miller
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_2
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 15:17:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: list BAISTEFILA: List Message Rejected (fwd)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 15:45:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael J Broyde
X-Sender: mbroyde@larry.cc.emory.edu
I am doing some investigation concerning the proper bracha to make on
papayas and various berries. I have been told that rasberries and
blackberries are not really the same type of berry at all, and that one is
a "fruit" from a bush, and one is really a vegetable, in that it produces
fruit in its first year of growing.
Does anyone know the facts here?
Michael J. Broyde
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_2
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 15:30:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Pidyon HaBen
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
This may be simple to many of you, but one of the chaverim of our Daf Yomi
Yerushalmi Shiur - Rabbi Meyer Magence - came up with a source for the
minhag to place a child on a silver tray and surround him with the
assembled women's jewelry at a Pidyon HaBen - it is based on the bringing
of Bikkurim and ittur bikkurim.
BTW, BS"D we made a siyum on gantz Seder Zera'im and will begin Seder
Mo'ed this evening BE"H.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_2
From: asheffey@smgusa.com
Message-Id:
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 17:02:31 -0600
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: FW: Shiurim
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
As far as Rashi et al and mathematics: I have often pulled my hair out =20
trying to understand a Rashi when all he was saying is 2+2=3D4=2E Be that=20=
as =20
it may, though, it does not seem unreasonable for Chazal to have had =20
knowledge of Pi and other higher mathematics which were already well =20
developed by the time of the Mishnah=2E In fact, to say that they =20
specifically didn't know about it by using a medieval commentator (Rashi) =20=
=20
as proof would seem ungrounded; rather, it could be proof that Rashi was =20
simply using unwieldy language to explain a point (as he does with many =20
other types of explanations of phenomena when there is no simple one word =20=
=20
understanding)=2E
It could be argued that Chazal purposefully were not exact in their =20
measurements as a response to Greek culture, of which math could be seen =20
a part=2E Therefore, the shiurim were halachiclly acceptable without =20
having the ta'am p'gam of Hellenism=2E It could be seen as a =20
semi-g'zayrah=2E It would seem unlikely that Chazal had no knowledge of Pi=
=20
and suchlike=2E
I still hold that my understanding of the "K" prefix in "k'zayis" has =20
some basis=2E Saying that "like" an olive and "approximately the volume" =20=
=20
of an olive is really a semantic difference=2E Both imply a comparison of=20=
=20
volume (the former reading based on context)=2E
*******************************************
SMG Marketing Group, Inc=2E
875 N=2E Michigan, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL=2E 60611
Phone: (800) 678-3026
Fax: (312) 642-3597 =20
Internet: smginfo@smgusa=2Ecom
Homepage: http://www=2Esmgusa=2Ecom
********************************************
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_2
Message-ID: <4CAE1408EC88D1118CC00060971BEF4805A14C@smtp.datacorinc.com>
From: Ken Miller
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: RE: Lubavitch again.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 16:32:23 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
The ad which Rabbi Bechhofer referred to appeared on page A18 of the
national edition, and in the New York area it is on B16, the last page
of the "Metro" section.
It is very important to note that this ad was placed by a Rabbi Yitzchok
Springer, and does not mention the name of any organization of any kind.
It gives a street address of 820 Eastern Parkway (NOT 770), and a
website at www.universalperfection.com I personally find it very scary
that so much emphasis is put on the Rebbe and not on HaShem, but I did
not see any outright deification. Miracles might be ascribed to *any*
navi without it constituting avoda zara.
I hope that (as Rabbi Bechhofer suggested) someone can scan a copy onto
a graphics file, or at least type in the text for everyone to read.
Akiva Miller
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_2
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 22:24:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Moderation/Supervision
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
After a day of working with the new format, I have now successfully, I
believe, subscribed the entire group to "baistefila." I have also set the
defaults for no moderation, so any post will go directly out to everyone,
unless, of course, you set your own personal settings for digests, in
which case you will get the accumulated mail from the previous day in one
lump posting.
While the group is "unmoderated" it will be supervised! Please remember to
use "deracheha darchei no'am" to the utmost! As this group is affiliated
with Cong. Bais Tefila, I have asked chaverim who are members of the
group to help monitor the forum so that it is wide ranging and stimulating
- but with high Torah standards and high Derech Eretz standards. Since the
group consists of either people many of us know or those recommended by
others in the group, I am sure that this will be the case and a kiddush
shem shomayim.
I will rewrite the Welcome message to reflect the unmoderated setting.
Kol Tuv,
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_2--
----__ListProc__NextPart__892094465446047232--
From baistefila@shamash.org Fri Apr 10 00:01:11 1998
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 00:01:09 EDT
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
From: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: BAISTEFILA digest 3
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.05 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart__892180869446090434"
----__ListProc__NextPart__892180869446090434
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BAISTEFILA Digest 3
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Uncle Immanuel's response
by Isser Zalman Weisberg
2) list BAISTEFILA: List Message Rejected (fwd)
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
3) Re: Uncle Immanuel's response
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
4) Changing Kitniyos Minhag
by Mordechai Torczyner
5) Shiurim
by asheffey@smgusa.com
6) Re: Uncle Immanuel's response
by margol
7) Text of yesterday's ad
by Ken Miller
8) Re: Changing Kitniyos Minhag
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
9) RE: berries and brochos (fwd)
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
10) Re:pesach (fwd)
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
11) Shiurim
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
12) Re: Shiurim (fwd)
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
13) Re: Changing Kitniyos Minhag (fwd)
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
14) Membership
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
15) Britta water filters
by Claude Schochet
16) Re: Changing Kitniyos Minhag
by Mordechai Torczyner
----__ListProc__NextPart__892180869446090434
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_3"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_3"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_3
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
From: Isser Zalman Weisberg
Subject: Uncle Immanuel's response
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 02:45:44 -0400
Yosef Gavriel,
You write "Well, to prove my Uncle Immanuel's response to Rabbi Keller
misguided, there is a full page ad today in The New York Times from this
fellow Springer....with a Yechi and many other objectionable
characteristics and statements."
Please explain. Uncle Immanuel made himself very clear as to what he thinks
about the Mishichistim. He simply stated that the belief that a Tzadik
could be Moshiach after his histalkus is a legitimate Torah position. It
surely has no connection to avoda zara r"l, as Rabbi Keller suggested. He
clearly does not support promoting the belief since it is completely
subjective. In his shul he asered "Yechi". His position is shared by the
overwhelming majority of Rabbonim, Roshei Yeshivos, Talmidei Chachomim &
Shluchim in Lubavitch. What does Springer's ad prove? Springer is a simple
Jew with limited Torah knowledge. His job is to take attendance in Yeshiva.
As this is not very demanding, he has lots of time to spend on his
mishugasim. In Lubavitch nobody takes him seriously and neither should you.
I don't consider him dangerous since one has to be an imbecile to be
effected by his narisha ads.
Isser Zalman
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_3
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 05:47:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: list BAISTEFILA: List Message Rejected (fwd)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
From: kennethgmiller@juno.com (Kenneth G Miller)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 00:01:57 EDT
asheffey@smgusa.com writes:
<<< I still hold that my understanding of the "K" prefix in "k'zayis" has
some basis. Saying that "like" an olive and "approximately the volume"
of an olive is really a semantic difference. Both imply a comparison of
volume (the former reading based on context). >>>
At first, I said to myself, hmmm, **K**zayis, and **K**baytza, but seah,
reviis, shekel... these others do NOT have the K prefix. Perhaps these
shiurim may be approximate, but those must be exact? But then I said no,
the K is used specifically because the shiur does not have a name of its
own, and so it must be named as equal to a standardized object. Equal,
not approximate.
I thought for a moment that "amah" might disprove this, since it is also
the name of the middle finger, (in which case the measurment should be a
"k-amah") but then I realized that an amah is not the finger itself. It
is the distance from the elbow to that fingertip. The finger wasnamed
after the measure, not the other way around. I see no way to translate
"kezayis" as "approximately an egg".
However, I also belong to the Hebrew Language & Etymology" ngroup
(heblang@shamash.org) and I'll ask them their ideas.
Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_3
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 05:57:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: Isser Zalman Weisberg
cc: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Uncle Immanuel's response
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Uncle Immanuel wrote that Rabbi Keller's essay should not have been
published. It certainly should have. Lubavitch has money, they must
respons in full page ads to full page ads. And, why is Springer employed
by a Lubavitcher yeshiva?
A public position is not only fair game, it demands public responses.
RAbbi Keller's was mandated. I do not defend his errors in Chassidic
doctrine, only the obvious danger of slick ads in the NYT.
YGB
On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Isser Zalman Weisberg wrote:
> Yosef Gavriel,
>
> You write "Well, to prove my Uncle Immanuel's response to Rabbi Keller
> misguided, there is a full page ad today in The New York Times from this
> fellow Springer....with a Yechi and many other objectionable
> characteristics and statements."
> Please explain. Uncle Immanuel made himself very clear as to what he thinks
> about the Mishichistim. He simply stated that the belief that a Tzadik
> could be Moshiach after his histalkus is a legitimate Torah position. It
> surely has no connection to avoda zara r"l, as Rabbi Keller suggested. He
> clearly does not support promoting the belief since it is completely
> subjective. In his shul he asered "Yechi". His position is shared by the
> overwhelming majority of Rabbonim, Roshei Yeshivos, Talmidei Chachomim &
> Shluchim in Lubavitch. What does Springer's ad prove? Springer is a simple
> Jew with limited Torah knowledge. His job is to take attendance in Yeshiva.
> As this is not very demanding, he has lots of time to spend on his
> mishugasim. In Lubavitch nobody takes him seriously and neither should you.
> I don't consider him dangerous since one has to be an imbecile to be
> effected by his narisha ads.
>
> Isser Zalman
>
>
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_3
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 09:05:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mordechai Torczyner
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Changing Kitniyos Minhag
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Hello,
Someone told me this morning that he had seen a source permitting
the following:
For a Sefardi woman, who married an Ashkenazi man, and now no
longer eats Kitniyos on Pesach, to eat Kitniyos when they visit her
parents' home on Pesach.
Does anyone know of a source permitting this? Am I missing
something obvious?
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEBSHAS! http://www.virtual.co.il/torah/webshas & Leave the Keywords at Home
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_3
From: asheffey@smgusa.com
Message-Id:
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 8:46:22 -0600
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Shiurim
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<<< At first, I said to myself, hmmm, **K**zayis, and **K**baytza, but =20
seah,
reviis, shekel=2E=2E=2E these others do NOT have the K prefix=2E Perhaps th=
ese
shiurim may be approximate, but those must be exact? But then I said no,
the K is used specifically because the shiur does not have a name of its
own, and so it must be named as equal to a standardized object=2E Equal,
not approximate=2E>>>
A potential issue with saying that a k'zayis is to be considered an exact =20=
=20
and standardized measurement is that olives vary in size=2E So, is a =20
k'zayis a large olive or a small one? Or somewhere in between? This =20
issue could extend to all shiurim derived from comparisons with natural =20
manifestations (i=2Ee=2E, someone's m'lo lugmov could be larger than =20
another's)=2E
Perhaps an answer could be that shiurim could be halachos l'Moshe MiSinai =20=
=20
(does anyone have a source for this contention?), in similar fashion to =20
the kalim and binyan of the Mishkan=2E Hashem could have showed Moshe =20
Rabbeinu a particular olive and said **this** olive is the size of a =20
"k'zayis"=2E Then there would be a basis for standardization=2E
An additional question - if H"BH was giving out names for other shiurim, =20
why not all the "K" shiurim too (eg, why would they not have names of =20
their own)?
*******************************************
SMG Marketing Group, Inc=2E
875 N=2E Michigan, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL=2E 60611
Phone: (800) 678-3026
Fax: (312) 642-3597 =20
Internet: smginfo@smgusa=2Ecom
Homepage: http://www=2Esmgusa=2Ecom
********************************************
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_3
Message-ID: <352CFD50.E9819B78@ms.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 12:54:40 -0400
From: margol
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Uncle Immanuel's response
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I haven't seen the ad myself, but if the web site that is attached to
the ad that was quoted in an earlierpost is any indication, I'm not that
worried. I'd encourage everyone to take a look at the web site. I
perused the site briefly and could not even find ONE mention of the
Rebbe as being Moshiach. It is a web site spreading the beautiful idea
of trying to bring Moshiach as soon as possible and it also has writings
of and bioographical info about the former Rebbe ZT"L.
Take care,
Joel
PS the site, if you didn't catch it before is
http://www.universalperfection.com/
Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
>
> Uncle Immanuel wrote that Rabbi Keller's essay should not have been
> published. It certainly should have. Lubavitch has money, they must
> respons in full page ads to full page ads. And, why is Springer employed
> by a Lubavitcher yeshiva?
>
> A public position is not only fair game, it demands public responses.
> RAbbi Keller's was mandated. I do not defend his errors in Chassidic
> doctrine, only the obvious danger of slick ads in the NYT.
>
> YGB
>
> On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Isser Zalman Weisberg wrote:
>
> > Yosef Gavriel,
> >
> > You write "Well, to prove my Uncle Immanuel's response to Rabbi Keller
> > misguided, there is a full page ad today in The New York Times from this
> > fellow Springer....with a Yechi and many other objectionable
> > characteristics and statements."
> > Please explain. Uncle Immanuel made himself very clear as to what he thinks
> > about the Mishichistim. He simply stated that the belief that a Tzadik
> > could be Moshiach after his histalkus is a legitimate Torah position. It
> > surely has no connection to avoda zara r"l, as Rabbi Keller suggested. He
> > clearly does not support promoting the belief since it is completely
> > subjective. In his shul he asered "Yechi". His position is shared by the
> > overwhelming majority of Rabbonim, Roshei Yeshivos, Talmidei Chachomim &
> > Shluchim in Lubavitch. What does Springer's ad prove? Springer is a simple
> > Jew with limited Torah knowledge. His job is to take attendance in Yeshiva.
> > As this is not very demanding, he has lots of time to spend on his
> > mishugasim. In Lubavitch nobody takes him seriously and neither should you.
> > I don't consider him dangerous since one has to be an imbecile to be
> > effected by his narisha ads.
> >
> > Isser Zalman
> >
> >
>
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> c/o Shani Bechhofer
> sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
--
Joel
Margolies
margol@ms.com
W-212-762-2386
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_3
Message-ID: <4CAE1408EC88D1118CC00060971BEF4805A150@smtp.datacorinc.com>
From: Ken Miller
To: "'baistefila@shamash.org'"
Subject: Text of yesterday's ad
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 14:04:04 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Following is the full text of the ad which appeared in yesterday's New
York Times. I typed this in by hand, so there may be typos. If so,
please bring them to our attention. My comments are in double brackets
[[ like this ]] This is the text of the ad, no more, and no less.
Editiorializing will be done in other posts. --- Akiva Miller
========================================================
[[ It was a full-page ad. In the top right corner, in English: ]] By
The Grace of G-d
[[ Then, on the left, was a picture of the Rebbe, and on the right was
the large-print headline: ]] In this world, it helps to know which way
we're headed
[[ The text of the ad then reads: ]]
The Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson was born ninety-six years ago
today (11 Nisan, 5662).
He was born with a mission...
[[ in italics: ]] ... To change the world in which we live and lead it
to the ultimate redemption as predicted by the prophets.
Appreciation of the Rebbe's impact on Jewish life around the world is
not limited to his followers and Chasidim.
Single-mindedly and single-handedly the Rebbe built and empire of
outreach, teaching and humanitarian aid that has touched the lives of
millions.
He inspired the self-sacrifice of those who stoked the embers of Jewish
life during the darkest decades of Soviet Communism.
More recently he dispatched scores of rabbis to rebuild the Jewish
infrastructure in those same countries after the collapse of the evil
empire.
Under the harsh glare of hostile regimes, his Shluchim (emissaries) risk
their lives to maintain Jewish education and celebration, while from
Perth to Peru, young Lubavitch couples tend to the needs of the most
far-flung Jewish communities.
On a more intimate level, the Rebbe is a source of help and hope to
hundreds of thousands who turn to him for advice and blessing.
His miraculous intervention on behalf of the sick, the emotionally
scarred, and the materially beleaguered is truly the stuff of legends.
His awesomely accurate and prophetic ability to foresee personal and
global developments, compel us to take note of his interpretation of the
dynamic of the contemporary world.
In the polar tension between miraculous global events on the one hand
and the spiritual degradation is social values and human behavior on the
other, the Rebbe has identified the threshold of the Messianic era, and
ultimate redemption for all humankind.
The Rebbe predicted such major milestones as the fall of Communism, the
victory of Israel in its wars, and its emergence unscathed from the
Iraqi threat, well in advance of their occurrence. And the Rebbe points
to unprecedented positive trends - towards peace among the nations, the
curing of illness, greater prosperity and plummenting [[sic]] crime
levels - as a clear demonstration of the unfolding of redemption,
culminating in the Rebbe's prophetic declaration, [[ bold and italic: ]]
"The time of your redemption has arrived."
On this, the Rebbe's 96th birthday, it is appropriate to reflect on the
world as a whole and on the course of our personal lives - to begin
living our lives in a manner that is consistent with the new era which
we are entering.
Moshiach's presence and achievements are already manifest. The complete
redemption and transformation of the world is imminent. Its fulfillment
is something which we have the power and obligation to accelerate, by
reinforcing our belief in the imminence of redemption and our acceptance
of Moshiach.
Celebrate the Rebbe's 96th birthday by drawing Moshiach that much more
into the open. Only we can make it happen sooner, by committing
ourselves to mitzvahs and acts of lovingkindness that will bring harmony
and redemption into all of our lives.
[[ Hebrew: ]] Yechi adonaynu moraynu v'rabaynu melech hamoshiach l'olam
va'ed
[[ Across the width of the page is this coupon, with a dashed border for
cutting from the paper, and text in a smaller font: ]]
A single righteous act can tip the balance and make all the difference.
In honor of the Rebbe's birthday, I hereby commit myself to the
following improvements in my lifestyle in order to hasten the arrival of
Moshiach and Redemption for all mankind.
[_] Studying Torah regularly
[_] Giving my children a Jewish education
[_] Purchasing new Torah books
[_] Learning more about Moshiach
[_] Lighting Shabbos and Festival candles (women and girls over 3)
[_] Putting tefillin on every weekday
[_] Putting kosher mezuzahs on all my door posts
[_] Keeping kosher
[_] Observing the laws of Jewish family life
[_] Doing more to treat my neighbors kindly
[_] Other ____________________________
Please send a report of my commitments to the Rebbe Melech HaMoshiach.
Name ____________________
Jewish name ___________________
________________________ (your Hebrew name and your mother's Hebrew
name)
Address ______________________
City ________________________
State _____ Zip _____________
[_] Please send more information about Moshiach and Redemption
Please return coupon to:
Rabbi Yitzchok Springer
820 Eastern Parkway
Brooklyn NY 11213
Fax: (718) 756-0017
[[ below the coupon, this appears: ]]
For more information on Moshiach please call (718) 953-6168 or view the
Moshiach website www.universalperfection.com
We encourage newspapers, organizations and individuals to reprint the
above for distribution.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_3
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 13:25:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: Mordechai Torczyner
cc: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Changing Kitniyos Minhag
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
R' Ovadia Yosef holds that kitniyos may be discontinued in ISrael without
hataras nedarim - check Yechaveh Da'as vol. 1 - but I do not recall this
case. THe YAlkut Yosef would be a good place to look, but as of yet I do
not own one.
YGB
On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Mordechai Torczyner wrote:
> Hello,
> Someone told me this morning that he had seen a source permitting
> the following:
> For a Sefardi woman, who married an Ashkenazi man, and now no
> longer eats Kitniyos on Pesach, to eat Kitniyos when they visit her
> parents' home on Pesach.
> Does anyone know of a source permitting this? Am I missing
> something obvious?
> Mordechai
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> WEBSHAS! http://www.virtual.co.il/torah/webshas & Leave the Keywords at Home
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_3
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 13:26:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: RE: berries and brochos (fwd)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 10:08:32 -0400
From: "Pechman, Abraham"
To: "'Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer'"
Subject: RE: berries and brochos
My understanding is that although raspberries and blackberries are
definitely not the same type of berry, they do grow in the same way,
which is as follows:
The plant sends runners or shoots, which flower and produce fruit. Both
blackberries and raspberries take two years to profuce fruit (bienniel).
The first year the runner grows, it flowers but produces no fruit. The
next year, it flowers and produces fruit, and that's it. Nothing happens
with that runner in following years (except for its draining of the
plant's resources, which is why the two year old runners are normally
pruned off after the fruit-producing season).
Incidentally, raspberries have two main varieties (one of which might be
called blackberries by some people), and blackberries have several
popular varieties (including boysenberry, loganberry, dewberry...). Or
maybe I reversed it. My point is, if you publicize your results, be
mindful that what you refer to as a blackberry might be interpreted as a
raspberry. Not that it would make a difference; my understanding is that
the brocho on all raspberry varieties and all blackberry varieties is
the same, since the plants grow in the same way.
The are other berries which grow in bushes, where each shoot (branch)
produces fruit year after year. I believe blueberries are in this group.
As far as papaya is concerned, I don't have information off hand, but
I'm reasonably sure it's not related to berries.
Probably the safest way to continue your investigation would be to buy
blueberry, raspberry, blackberry, strawberry (runners, but I don't know
the life-cycle off hand), etc. plants and grow them in your yard (you
would need at least 7 hours of direct sunlight per day, I think, and
plenty of water). After three years, you would be able to see which
plants do what, and draw conclusions appropriately.
Or would that be a breach of mesora...?
> ----------
> From: Shoshanah M. & Yosef G.
> Bechhofer[SMTP:sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 4:17 PM
> To: baistefila@shamash.org
> Subject: list BAISTEFILA: List Message Rejected (fwd)
>
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 15:45:22 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael J Broyde
> X-Sender: mbroyde@larry.cc.emory.edu
>
> I am doing some investigation concerning the proper bracha to make on
> papayas and various berries. I have been told that rasberries and
> blackberries are not really the same type of berry at all, and that
> one is
> a "fruit" from a bush, and one is really a vegetable, in that it
> produces
> fruit in its first year of growing.
>
> Does anyone know the facts here?
>
> Michael J. Broyde
>
>
>
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_3
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 13:27:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re:pesach (fwd)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 10:02:31 -0400
From: BARUCH J KELMAN
To: Shoshanah Bechhofer
Subject: Re:pesach
If anyone knows the answer to this it would be appreciated the person who
wants to know is in Israel so the sooner the better.
>Dear Baruch Sorry to bother you but can you find out if the Britta water
>filter can be used on Pesach .I can,t get an answer here. Somebody told me
>it might be a problem. Chag Sameach.
>
>----------
>
>>
>
>
>
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_3
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 13:37:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Shiurim
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
There has been some discussion here on whether the quest to give precise
definitions to shiurim is a modern pursuit, perhaps even sociologically
based, or not. In fact, I recently had a conversation with Rabbi Chaim
Twerski, who is actually making Pesach and too busy to write at length,
but said he will get around to it eventually, about shiurim, and was
reminded that the Rambam gave the shiur in Egyptian drams, that somehow
correlated to barleycorns, and that while R' Chaim Na'eh was really just
validating the extant minhag, he did use drams and barley to confirm the
measurements. I recall that the Mishna (Middos?) also states that there
were two (or more rods in the Beis HaMikdosh form easuring the various
amos).
BTW, Rabbi Twerski went around with calipers measurin thumbs and has
reached interim results far closer to RC"N than the Chazon Ish.
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_3
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 13:51:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Shiurim (fwd)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 21:42:27 +0300 (GMT+0300)
From: Eli Turkel
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
Subject: Re: Shiurim
> BTW, Rabbi Twerski went around with calipers measurin thumbs and has
> reached interim results far closer to RC"N than the Chazon Ish.
>
Today there is loads of scientific evidence that basically confirms
the measurements of Rav Chaim Naeh (i.e. Rambam). Among others the
dimensions of the Temple 500x500 amot do not fit unto the har habayit
if one uses the Chazon Ish shiur. Yhere are many other similar cases.
Akthough most mikvaot that have been found from second Temple days
contain way more than the minimum 40 sa-ah according to all shitot
there are some that are too small according to Chazon Ish.
I once heard a quote in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach
that the father of the Chazon Ish did not keep Chazon Ish shiurim
not to mention the existing kiddush cup of the Chaftez Chaim.
chag kasher vesameach,
Eli Turkel
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_3
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 13:53:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Changing Kitniyos Minhag (fwd)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 21:46:18 +0300 (GMT+0300)
From: Eli Turkel
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
Subject: Re: Changing Kitniyos Minhag
>
> R' Ovadia Yosef holds that kitniyos may be discontinued in ISrael without
> hataras nedarim - check Yechaveh Da'as vol. 1 - but I do not recall this
> case. THe YAlkut Yosef would be a good place to look, but as of yet I do
> not own one.
>
> YGB
>
Rav Ovadiah Yosef holds that all ashkenazim in Israel should follow
the sephardi minhag and pasken like Beis Yosef the posek of Israel in
all matters.
I know of no ashkenazi rav that accepts this,
It is easy for a sefardi rav to pasken that ashkenazim should adopt
sefardi halacha.
There have also appeared several articles denying his allegation that
Rav Yosef Karo has to be accepted as the posek for Israel.
Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_3
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 14:00:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Membership
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I have been receiving requests for subscriptions to the group at an
amazing rate. If you are recommending the group to individuals, please
have them let me know and I will add them, no questions asked, on the
assumption that you would not recommend someone not suitable.
I would appreciate if some of you might suggest questions to ask or
guidelines to follow in accepting others who find out by chance of the
group's existence. The subscription privelege is really the only "filter"
imposed on the group, and I think it is a good thing. If someone would
also like to serve on a "subscription committee" or advisory group
(someone commented I'm taking this way too seriously, but I can't think of
a less pompous term :-) ) I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_3
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 15:05:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Claude Schochet
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Britta water filters
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
The 1998 Blumenkrantz discusses this filter. He says that there is a
vegetable substance in the filter, and Britta won't tell him what is in
it. So for the moment, don't use it.
If anybody knows more, please tell us. We would like to use ours!
__________________________________________________________________
Claude L. Schochet claude@math.wayne.edu
Mathematics Department
Wayne State University http://www.math.wayne.edu/~claude/
Detroit, MI 48202
313-577-3177 office
313-577-7596 fax
248-539-8466 home
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_3
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 16:18:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mordechai Torczyner
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
cc: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Changing Kitniyos Minhag
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
> R' Ovadia Yosef holds that kitniyos may be discontinued in ISrael without
> hataras nedarim - check Yechaveh Da'as vol. 1 - but I do not recall this
> case. THe YAlkut Yosef would be a good place to look, but as of yet I do
> not own one.
That would be intersting, for he writesthat a person from Edut haMizrach
woukld requier Hatarah! It's in Yechaveh Daas 1:9 (end of the Teshuvah).
Even with Hatarah, I don't see how it could be applied here, to a Sephardi
girl who is married to an Ashkenazi man.
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEBSHAS! http://www.virtual.co.il/torah/webshas & Leave the Keywords at Home
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_3--
----__ListProc__NextPart__892180869446090434--
From baistefila@shamash.org Sat Apr 11 00:01:17 1998
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 00:01:15 EDT
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
From: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: BAISTEFILA digest 4
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.05 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart__892267275446133637"
----__ListProc__NextPart__892267275446133637
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BAISTEFILA Digest 4
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Yechaveh Da'as
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
----__ListProc__NextPart__892267275446133637
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_4"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_4"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_4
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:06:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Yechaveh Da'as
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I thank Reb Mordechai for correcting my recollection on Rav Ovadia Yosef's
position on opting out of kitniyos. I am away from home for Pesach so
would appreciate if someone might look there as I recall, perhaps
incorrectly, that there is some minhag that Ashkenazim hold of that he
says Sephardim may drop without hatara.
P.S. I would like to remind everyone that you may reduce the volume of
mail to one message a day consisting of a digest of all the past 24 hours
worth of messages by sending the following message to
listproc@shamash.org:
set baistefila mail digest .
A Pesach Kasher v'Sameiach to all,
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_4--
----__ListProc__NextPart__892267275446133637--
From baistefila@shamash.org Wed Apr 15 00:01:11 1998
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 00:01:07 EDT
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
From: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: BAISTEFILA digest 5
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.05 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart__892612867446306433"
----__ListProc__NextPart__892612867446306433
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BAISTEFILA Digest 5
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) fruit
by David Riceman
----__ListProc__NextPart__892612867446306433
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_5"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_5"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_5
Message-ID: <35340667.6933@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 19:59:20 -0500
From: David Riceman
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: fruit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I'm also curious about raspberries and blueberries (and
strawberries). I just planted some a few weeks ago, and I haven't been
able to figure out if they're considered etz maachal w.r.t. the laws of
orlah. My personal experience with raspberries and blueberries (when I
was a child, so I don't know how reliable my memory is) was similar to
the previous posting, but the book of sage advice on pruning which came
with the plants said that blueberries also fruit on two year old shoots
and that three year old shoots should be removed.
By the way, grapes clearly are chayyav b'orlah even though they are
also pruned severely every year. Could the age of the stalk be a red
herring? The shulhan aruch doesn't define what makes something a tree in
the context of orlah, only in the context of brachos.
David Riceman
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_5--
----__ListProc__NextPart__892612867446306433--
From baistefila@shamash.org Thu Apr 16 00:01:10 1998
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 00:01:07 EDT
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
From: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: BAISTEFILA digest 6
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.05 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart__892699267446349633"
----__ListProc__NextPart__892699267446349633
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BAISTEFILA Digest 6
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: fruit
by "Pechman, Abraham"
----__ListProc__NextPart__892699267446349633
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_6"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_6"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_6
Message-ID: <642B2955645BD0118FEE00805FD4068228DDDE@MWEXCHANGE>
From: "Pechman, Abraham"
To: baistefila@shamash.org, 'David Riceman'
Subject: RE: fruit
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 09:57:16 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I don't think the age of the stalk is a red herring. The difference
between a grape and a raspberry is that the new stalks on a grape
(branches) come from the trunk. The new stalks of a raspberry (runners)
come from the ground (or very close to it), and are therefore
categorically different than the new stalks of a grape.
Avi Pechman
> ----------
> From: David Riceman[SMTP:driceman@worldnet.att.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:59 PM
> To: baistefila@shamash.org
> Subject: fruit
>
>
> By the way, grapes clearly are chayyav b'orlah even though they are
> also pruned severely every year. Could the age of the stalk be a red
> herring? The shulhan aruch doesn't define what makes something a tree
> in
> the context of orlah, only in the context of brachos.
>
> David Riceman
>
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_6--
----__ListProc__NextPart__892699267446349633--
From baistefila@shamash.org Fri Apr 17 00:01:07 1998
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:01:06 EDT
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
From: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: BAISTEFILA digest 7
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.05 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart__892785666446392833"
----__ListProc__NextPart__892785666446392833
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BAISTEFILA Digest 7
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) list BAISTEFILA: List Message Rejected (fwd)
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
2) Mashiach again
by Isser Zalman Weisberg
3) What is the b'racha on Pizza?
by Ken Miller
4) Good Shabbos!
by Ken Miller
----__ListProc__NextPart__892785666446392833
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_7"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_7"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_7
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 00:05:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: list BAISTEFILA: List Message Rejected (fwd)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 23:10:59 EDT
From: BARUCH J KELMAN
If one davens a shabbos shmoneh ashreh on shabbos yom tov and mentions
yaaleh veyovah does he repeat shmonah ashreh?
good yom tov
baruch kelman
PS I looked in the mishanh brurah and I still wasn't sure I would think you
do not have to repeat.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_7
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Bais Tefila Learning Group
From: Isser Zalman Weisberg
Subject: Mashiach again
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 07:54:00 -0400
To Yosef Gavriel, Samson R. Bechhofer, Baruch J Kelman, Akiva Miller, Mechi
Fendel, HM, Chaim Brown, Michael J. Broyde, Ben Zion Ungar and all who have
written about this topic.
As you are all not completely familiar with what is going on in Lubavitch,
you have confused unrelated issues. Let me clarify once and for all:
There are several (at least 20!) completely independent positions regarding
Mashiach and Lubavitch. They are:
1. The Rebbe was b'Chezkas Mashiach before his histalkus
2. Position #1 should be stressed, promoted and advertised
3. The Rebbe was considered Mashiach before his histalkus
4. The Rebbe has the status of "Vaddai" Mashiach even now. 770 is the
(first stage of the) Bais Hamikdash (not only spiritually).
5. Position #4 should be stressed, promoted and advertised
6. The Rebbe will stand up through T'chiyas Hameisim and be Mashiach very soon.
7. Position #6 should be stressed within Lubavitch.
8. Position #6 should be promoted and advertised outside of Lubavitch.
9. The Rebbe never really passed away. He ascended to heaven in some way we
cannot perceive. He currently has the status of "Yaakov Ovenu lo meis"
10. Position #9 should be stressed, promoted and advertised.
11. Position #9 has practical implications, i.e. one should not visit the
Rebbe's Ohel (because he is not there!)
12. A "Rebbe" according to chassidus is "atzmus melubash b'guf"
13. One may prey to the Rebbe (chas v'sholom)
14. The Rebbe is [a] god (chas v'sholom)
15. The Rebbe is still with us spiritually and still is the source of
spiritual influx etc. to his chassidim. We will not have, and are not
interested in another Rebbe until Mashiach (and even beyond). We can still
tern to the Rebbe for brachos and direction.
16. The Rebbe responds to our questions via his seforim (Igros).
17. The Geuloh is definitely quickly approaching, and great efforts should
be made to prepare through adding in kiyum mitzvos b'hiddur and limud
Hatorah.
18. Position #17 should be stressed, promoted and advertised.
19. The Rebbe is Mashiach Ben Yoseif.
20. One should say "Yechi etc." from time to time.
21. One Should say "Yechi etc." as often as possible, scream it in
everyone's ears, put it on all printed materials, invitations, yarmulkas,
head bands, bumper stickers etc.
Now as far as who holds what, (Note: the following has not been verified
through an actual poll of ALL who call themselves "Lubavitchers." It is an
"educated" insiders assessment based on conversations with hundreds of
Lubavitchers. There may be a slight margin of error).
1. This Position was promoted by Rabbi Wolpe of Kiryat Gat, and excepted by
many (if not most) Lubavitchers. Some say the Rebbe approved this position.
Others believe that he clearly rejected it. Objectively it can be debated
if he actually fulfilled the Rambam's criteria for chezkas Mashiach. I can
see both sides. If anyone is interested I can elaborate. It is not really
relevant because it is clear from the Rambam (and al pi sevorah) that after
an histalkus (of any sort) one looses chezkas Mashiach.
2. This Position was also originated by Rabbi Wolpe. It was excepted by
many Lubavitchers, although not as many as position #1. His reasoning was
that since the Geulah may come al pi tevah (oni v'rochev al chamor,
according to GRA and Ohr Ha'Chaim), natural means must be employed to have
him accepted by Klal Yisroel. This is simular to David Hamelech, who was
chosen by Hashem, and anointed by Shmuel Hanovi. Yet it took many years
until he was finally accepted by Klal Yisroel through a natural
progression. If anyone is interested I can elaborate.
3. This was the position of at least 99% of the Rebbe's Chassidim. This is
independent of Position #1. Regardless of the Rambam's halachic criteria,
it is accepted as Chabad Chassidic doctrine that a Rebbe; Tzadik Hador;
Yechida HaKlalis; and Mashiach, are all synonyms. (I think the latter three
can be proven to be objectively true al pi Torah. If anyone is interested I
can elaborate.)
4. This position is rejected by all Talmidei Chachomim, Rabbonim, Roshei
Yeshiva, Shluchim etc. in Lubavitch. A group of am haratzim hold this view.
They are primarily insulated in Crown Heights and Kfar Chabad. (Not to be
confused with the magazine which beers that name). They number perhaps
several hundred. Although it is no real threat [as there is not the
slightest indication that this has effected their performance of any
mitzvah etc.( i.e. not one single Lubavitcher has advocated to stop fasting
on Tisha B'Av (chas v'sholom) etc.] non-the-less it is a mishugaas and
shtus and internally we are trying hard to educate the above am haratzim.
Intervention from outside sources is counter-productive, as it only
strengthens them.
5. Same as #4, except a much smaller group. They are however very vocal (as
the Gemarah says: istera b'ligina etc.). A few are wealthy, and support all
their activities. (Their main supporter just went bankrupt and ran away
with his family, so hopefully we will see less of their stupid ads etc.).
6. This is the position of the majority of Lubavitchers, including a large
percentage of Talmidei Chachomim, Rabbonim, Roshei Yeshiva, Shluchim etc.
Even though if one has to resort to Techiyas Hameisim there are many
excellent candidates besides the Rebbe, there is logic to this position. If
anyone is interested I can elaborate.
7. A smaller group within #6 (perhaps half?) There is a bit of logic to
this position, although I do not support it. If anyone is interested I can
explain it.
8. A much smaller group within #7. I have as yet to receive a clear
explanation to their logic, so don't ask me. Although it does not violate
any halacha one iota chas v'sholom, however clearly the position of the
overwhelming majority of Shluchim is that any promotion of the Rebbe as
Mashiach in any form is divisive, counter-productive, and detracts from the
main mandate of Chabad to spread Yiddishkait and Chissidus, and thus should
be shunned.
9. This position is held by many (though clearly not most) of Lubavitchers
and is even supported by some (though clearly not most of the) Talmidei
Chachomim in Lubavitch. It is based on (Ramban &) Rabbeinu Bachya (end of
V'yichi) who states that the concept of "Yaakov Ovenu lo meis" applies to
selected Tzadikei Hador in every generation. There are other sources as
well. If anyone is interested I can elaborate.
10. A much smaller group within #9. I have as yet to receive a clear
explanation to their logic, so don't ask me.
11. Supported by a small fringe of am haratzim (maybe a hundred or so?).
Rejected by all Talmidei Chachomim, Rabbonim, Roshei Yeshiva, Shluchim etc.
12. Accepted by all Lubavitchers as these are the words of the Rebbe, Rav
Tzadok HaKohen of Lublin, The Noam Elimelech etc. Although it sounds odd
(to say the least) to outsiders, for those familiar with the lingo of
Chassidus/Kabbalah it is quite simple. It is a deep expression of "ain od
melivado" and a complete rejection, in fact the exact opposite of, avodah
zara chas v'sholom. If anyone is interested I can elaborate.
13. I have never met, spoken to, or confirmed the existence of any
Lubavitcher who holds this view. Rabbi Springer's ad in the NYT quoted by
Rabbi Keller was a grammatical error, as he is not proficient in the
english language. He did not mean to tern to the Rebbe in prayer chas
v'sholom, but rather to turn to the Rebbe to pray for us. A simple phone
call to him would have confirmed the above.
14. I have never met, spoken to, or confirmed the existence of any
Lubavitcher who holds this view. Although allegedly there are a handful of
crazes in E. Yisroel, and one nut-case in Crown Heights. The indication by
Rabbi's Keller & Berger that there exists a "group" or even a "fringe"
promoting avodah zara in Lubavitch is Sheker v'Kazav, Motzi Shem Ra and
malicious slander! To put it in perspective: Over the past several years a
handful of Yeshiva boys in various "Litvesha Yeshivos" were caught doing
immoral acts r"l. If one had an agenda to engage in malicious slander
against "Litvesha Yeshivos" one can deceptively claim that there exists a
"group" in the above Yeshivos promoting znus r"l. Vd"l.
15. All Lubavitchers. If anyone is interested I can elaborate.
16. Many Lubavitchers (I don't know what percentage), including some (I
don't know how many) Talmidei Chachomim, Rabbonim, Roshei Yeshiva, Shluchim
etc. If anyone is interested I can explain it.
17. All Lubavitchers. If anyone is interested I can elaborate.
18. Most Lubavitchers including most Talmidei Chachomim, Rabbonim, Roshei
Yeshiva, Shluchim etc. A small group (I don't know how many) allegedly
believes that because groups #4, 5 & 11 have so seriously misrepresented
the Rebbes views on Mashiach, Lubavitch is better off staying away (at
least publicly) from the whole idea of Mashiach. I do not support this
position.
19. This is the view of Isser Zalman Weisberg. He claims it is based on the
GRA and he can prove it to any "open-minded" ben Torah. I am not so sure,
but he deserves a chance.
20. Many Lubavichers (I don't know what percentage). It means different
things to different people. a) The Rebbi is alive (spiritually or more then
that, depending who is saying it); b) The Rebbe will come alive (Tichiyas
Hameisim) and be Mashiach; c) I hate Rabbi Krinsky. There are other
possibilities. If anyone is interested I can (try to) explain.
21. More or less the same as groups 4, 5 & 11.
I hope I have clarified things.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_7
Message-ID: <4CAE1408EC88D1118CC00060971BEF4805A162@smtp.datacorinc.com>
From: Ken Miller
To: "'baistefila@shamash.org'"
Subject: What is the b'racha on Pizza?
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 10:12:31 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
This past November, the "Bais-Medrash" mailing list began an exciting
and vocal discussion of the proper b'racha on pizza. That discussion
took place mostly by private e-mail rather than on that list, mostly
because Bais-Medrash was being published very infrequently. I believe
that many people who participated in that discussion would like to see
it revived and continue here on BaisTefila.
I was one of those participants, and I did save most (but not all) of
the posts and e-mails which were involved. I plan, b'li neder, to get
those posts organized and I will repost them to this list sometime next
week. Most e-mails were cc'd to a large number of people, but there may
have been some which appear private, and I will want to get the writer's
okay before making them public. So figure that at some point late next
week (around Aprit 23 or so) I'll be able to send out this package of
maybe 10-15 articles, many of which are on the long side.
For now, I ask that NO ONE post anything to this group concerning the
b'racha on pizza. After I repost everything from November, we'll be on a
"level playing field" and everyone can say what they want.
For those (such as myself) who want to get up to speed on the topic, I
will suggest the following for your Yom Tov learning: Orach Chayim 168,
from paragraph 7 and onwards has all or most of the halachos dealing
with what foods are Hamotzi as opposed to Mezonos. Research this subject
in your favorite seforim and poskim, whatever they are. Pay special
attention to words or phrases which might be translated or interpreted
as "filling", "stuffing", "flavoring", "topping", or otherwise combining
another food with a bread dough, and exactly what meaning is intended by
that word or phrase. Also note whether or not it matters what kind of
food it is that we are combining into that dough.
Good Yom Tov - and Good Shabbos! - to all!
Akiva Miller
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_7
Message-ID: <4CAE1408EC88D1118CC00060971BEF4805A163@smtp.datacorinc.com>
From: Ken Miller
To: "'baistefila@shamash.org'"
Subject: Good Shabbos!
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 10:27:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I was reminded of something which I try to tell all my friends when Yom
Tov is on Erev Shabbos:
Regardless of what the halacha is regarding taking a shower on Yom Tov,
the mitzva of cleaning and refreshing one's body in honor of Shabbos was
never nullified (as far as I know). Tomorrow afternoon, do not simply
put on your Shabbos clothes. At the very least, go over to the bathroom
sink, strip to your waist, and use warm water to wash your face, hands,
and arms l'kavod Shabbos. I don't know of any opinion which would forbid
that, and I think that most would allow much more than that, such as
using liquid soap, and washing one's feet at well.
Too many people complain about how uncomfortable they are without a
daily shower. It is important for them - and everyone else too! - to be
familiar with these halachos, especially when Yom Tov is Erev Shabbos,
and/or when we have a "three-day Yom Tov". Tzay u'l'mad!
Good Shabbos!
Akiva Miller
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_7--
----__ListProc__NextPart__892785666446392833--
From baistefila@shamash.org Mon Apr 20 00:01:17 1998
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 00:01:14 EDT
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
From: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: BAISTEFILA digest 8
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.05 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart__893044874446522437"
----__ListProc__NextPart__893044874446522437
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BAISTEFILA Digest 8
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Mashiach again
by Mechi Fendel
2) Membership
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
3) Atzmus
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
4) Re: Changing Kitniyos Minhag
by Mechi Fendel
----__ListProc__NextPart__893044874446522437
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_8"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_8"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_8
Message-ID: <35399267.41C6@terra.co.il>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:57:59 +0300
From: Mechi Fendel
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Isser Zalman Weisberg
CC: Bais Tefila Learning Group
Subject: Re: Mashiach again
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
to: Rav Isser Zalman
Thanks for the thorough posting - it definitely clarified many things.
The "Moshiach Ben Yosef" idea is nice. I've heard (le'havdil) Herzl and
the State of Israel being given similar "characteristics" of Moshiach
Ben Yosef (Kibutz Galuyot, binyan HaAretz - the gashmius part, at least,
etc.) I would be interested in an ellaboration (especially since the
Rebbe never came to E"Y and never espoused for a mass aliyah of Chabad
chassidim... BTW do you encourage aliyah within your community? Do
other Sluchim?)
Thanks! Regards!
Mechi
Isser Zalman Weisberg wrote:
>
> To Yosef Gavriel, Samson R. Bechhofer, Baruch J Kelman, Akiva Miller, Mechi
> Fendel, HM, Chaim Brown, Michael J. Broyde, Ben Zion Ungar and all who have
> written about this topic.
>
> As you are all not completely familiar with what is going on in Lubavitch,
> you have confused unrelated issues. Let me clarify once and for all:
> There are several (at least 20!) completely independent positions regarding
> Mashiach and Lubavitch. They are:
> 1. The Rebbe was b'Chezkas Mashiach before his histalkus
> 2. Position #1 should be stressed, promoted and advertised
> 3. The Rebbe was considered Mashiach before his histalkus
> 4. The Rebbe has the status of "Vaddai" Mashiach even now. 770 is the
> (first stage of the) Bais Hamikdash (not only spiritually).
> 5. Position #4 should be stressed, promoted and advertised
> 6. The Rebbe will stand up through T'chiyas Hameisim and be Mashiach very soon.
> 7. Position #6 should be stressed within Lubavitch.
> 8. Position #6 should be promoted and advertised outside of Lubavitch.
> 9. The Rebbe never really passed away. He ascended to heaven in some way we
> cannot perceive. He currently has the status of "Yaakov Ovenu lo meis"
> 10. Position #9 should be stressed, promoted and advertised.
> 11. Position #9 has practical implications, i.e. one should not visit the
> Rebbe's Ohel (because he is not there!)
> 12. A "Rebbe" according to chassidus is "atzmus melubash b'guf"
> 13. One may prey to the Rebbe (chas v'sholom)
> 14. The Rebbe is [a] god (chas v'sholom)
> 15. The Rebbe is still with us spiritually and still is the source of
> spiritual influx etc. to his chassidim. We will not have, and are not
> interested in another Rebbe until Mashiach (and even beyond). We can still
> tern to the Rebbe for brachos and direction.
> 16. The Rebbe responds to our questions via his seforim (Igros).
> 17. The Geuloh is definitely quickly approaching, and great efforts should
> be made to prepare through adding in kiyum mitzvos b'hiddur and limud
> Hatorah.
> 18. Position #17 should be stressed, promoted and advertised.
> 19. The Rebbe is Mashiach Ben Yoseif.
> 20. One should say "Yechi etc." from time to time.
> 21. One Should say "Yechi etc." as often as possible, scream it in
> everyone's ears, put it on all printed materials, invitations, yarmulkas,
> head bands, bumper stickers etc.
>
> Now as far as who holds what, (Note: the following has not been verified
> through an actual poll of ALL who call themselves "Lubavitchers." It is an
> "educated" insiders assessment based on conversations with hundreds of
> Lubavitchers. There may be a slight margin of error).
>
> 1. This Position was promoted by Rabbi Wolpe of Kiryat Gat, and excepted by
> many (if not most) Lubavitchers. Some say the Rebbe approved this position.
> Others believe that he clearly rejected it. Objectively it can be debated
> if he actually fulfilled the Rambam's criteria for chezkas Mashiach. I can
> see both sides. If anyone is interested I can elaborate. It is not really
> relevant because it is clear from the Rambam (and al pi sevorah) that after
> an histalkus (of any sort) one looses chezkas Mashiach.
> 2. This Position was also originated by Rabbi Wolpe. It was excepted by
> many Lubavitchers, although not as many as position #1. His reasoning was
> that since the Geulah may come al pi tevah (oni v'rochev al chamor,
> according to GRA and Ohr Ha'Chaim), natural means must be employed to have
> him accepted by Klal Yisroel. This is simular to David Hamelech, who was
> chosen by Hashem, and anointed by Shmuel Hanovi. Yet it took many years
> until he was finally accepted by Klal Yisroel through a natural
> progression. If anyone is interested I can elaborate.
> 3. This was the position of at least 99% of the Rebbe's Chassidim. This is
> independent of Position #1. Regardless of the Rambam's halachic criteria,
> it is accepted as Chabad Chassidic doctrine that a Rebbe; Tzadik Hador;
> Yechida HaKlalis; and Mashiach, are all synonyms. (I think the latter three
> can be proven to be objectively true al pi Torah. If anyone is interested I
> can elaborate.)
> 4. This position is rejected by all Talmidei Chachomim, Rabbonim, Roshei
> Yeshiva, Shluchim etc. in Lubavitch. A group of am haratzim hold this view.
> They are primarily insulated in Crown Heights and Kfar Chabad. (Not to be
> confused with the magazine which beers that name). They number perhaps
> several hundred. Although it is no real threat [as there is not the
> slightest indication that this has effected their performance of any
> mitzvah etc.( i.e. not one single Lubavitcher has advocated to stop fasting
> on Tisha B'Av (chas v'sholom) etc.] non-the-less it is a mishugaas and
> shtus and internally we are trying hard to educate the above am haratzim.
> Intervention from outside sources is counter-productive, as it only
> strengthens them.
> 5. Same as #4, except a much smaller group. They are however very vocal (as
> the Gemarah says: istera b'ligina etc.). A few are wealthy, and support all
> their activities. (Their main supporter just went bankrupt and ran away
> with his family, so hopefully we will see less of their stupid ads etc.).
> 6. This is the position of the majority of Lubavitchers, including a large
> percentage of Talmidei Chachomim, Rabbonim, Roshei Yeshiva, Shluchim etc.
> Even though if one has to resort to Techiyas Hameisim there are many
> excellent candidates besides the Rebbe, there is logic to this position. If
> anyone is interested I can elaborate.
> 7. A smaller group within #6 (perhaps half?) There is a bit of logic to
> this position, although I do not support it. If anyone is interested I can
> explain it.
> 8. A much smaller group within #7. I have as yet to receive a clear
> explanation to their logic, so don't ask me. Although it does not violate
> any halacha one iota chas v'sholom, however clearly the position of the
> overwhelming majority of Shluchim is that any promotion of the Rebbe as
> Mashiach in any form is divisive, counter-productive, and detracts from the
> main mandate of Chabad to spread Yiddishkait and Chissidus, and thus should
> be shunned.
> 9. This position is held by many (though clearly not most) of Lubavitchers
> and is even supported by some (though clearly not most of the) Talmidei
> Chachomim in Lubavitch. It is based on (Ramban &) Rabbeinu Bachya (end of
> V'yichi) who states that the concept of "Yaakov Ovenu lo meis" applies to
> selected Tzadikei Hador in every generation. There are other sources as
> well. If anyone is interested I can elaborate.
> 10. A much smaller group within #9. I have as yet to receive a clear
> explanation to their logic, so don't ask me.
> 11. Supported by a small fringe of am haratzim (maybe a hundred or so?).
> Rejected by all Talmidei Chachomim, Rabbonim, Roshei Yeshiva, Shluchim etc.
> 12. Accepted by all Lubavitchers as these are the words of the Rebbe, Rav
> Tzadok HaKohen of Lublin, The Noam Elimelech etc. Although it sounds odd
> (to say the least) to outsiders, for those familiar with the lingo of
> Chassidus/Kabbalah it is quite simple. It is a deep expression of "ain od
> melivado" and a complete rejection, in fact the exact opposite of, avodah
> zara chas v'sholom. If anyone is interested I can elaborate.
> 13. I have never met, spoken to, or confirmed the existence of any
> Lubavitcher who holds this view. Rabbi Springer's ad in the NYT quoted by
> Rabbi Keller was a grammatical error, as he is not proficient in the
> english language. He did not mean to tern to the Rebbe in prayer chas
> v'sholom, but rather to turn to the Rebbe to pray for us. A simple phone
> call to him would have confirmed the above.
> 14. I have never met, spoken to, or confirmed the existence of any
> Lubavitcher who holds this view. Although allegedly there are a handful of
> crazes in E. Yisroel, and one nut-case in Crown Heights. The indication by
> Rabbi's Keller & Berger that there exists a "group" or even a "fringe"
> promoting avodah zara in Lubavitch is Sheker v'Kazav, Motzi Shem Ra and
> malicious slander! To put it in perspective: Over the past several years a
> handful of Yeshiva boys in various "Litvesha Yeshivos" were caught doing
> immoral acts r"l. If one had an agenda to engage in malicious slander
> against "Litvesha Yeshivos" one can deceptively claim that there exists a
> "group" in the above Yeshivos promoting znus r"l. Vd"l.
> 15. All Lubavitchers. If anyone is interested I can elaborate.
> 16. Many Lubavitchers (I don't know what percentage), including some (I
> don't know how many) Talmidei Chachomim, Rabbonim, Roshei Yeshiva, Shluchim
> etc. If anyone is interested I can explain it.
> 17. All Lubavitchers. If anyone is interested I can elaborate.
> 18. Most Lubavitchers including most Talmidei Chachomim, Rabbonim, Roshei
> Yeshiva, Shluchim etc. A small group (I don't know how many) allegedly
> believes that because groups #4, 5 & 11 have so seriously misrepresented
> the Rebbes views on Mashiach, Lubavitch is better off staying away (at
> least publicly) from the whole idea of Mashiach. I do not support this
> position.
> 19. This is the view of Isser Zalman Weisberg. He claims it is based on the
> GRA and he can prove it to any "open-minded" ben Torah. I am not so sure,
> but he deserves a chance.
> 20. Many Lubavichers (I don't know what percentage). It means different
> things to different people. a) The Rebbi is alive (spiritually or more then
> that, depending who is saying it); b) The Rebbe will come alive (Tichiyas
> Hameisim) and be Mashiach; c) I hate Rabbi Krinsky. There are other
> possibilities. If anyone is interested I can (try to) explain.
> 21. More or less the same as groups 4, 5 & 11.
>
> I hope I have clarified things.
Take care - Bye for now,
Mechi Fendel
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
mechi@terra.co.il
Making Supercomputing Personal...
Terra Computers Ltd., POB 3019
Omer Indusrial Park, 84965 ISRAEL
tel: 972-7-6483444/6/7
fax: 972-7-6483445
http://cool.terra.co.il
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_8
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 01:12:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: Yosef & Shoshana Bechhofer
cc: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Membership
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I have added a number of individuals whose names I recognized to the
group. I still have a number of subscription requests pending from
individuals with whom I am not familiar. The following is the message I
will send them. I thank one of our members for the idea and quite a bit of
the text.
_____________________________________
It seems that the mechanism of a number of groups that want to have
focused subjects and avoid certain types of flame wars is to e-mail to a
subscriber candidate a list of rules for being in the group. If the
candidate agrees to abide by the rules, then (s)he will then e-mail back
agreement, at which point the candidate is put on the list.
Failure to abide by the rules can result in a warning by the list-owner,
followed by summary termination (chas v'shalom!).
To keep it simple, abiding by parameters of "darchei noam" and the
Rambam's Thirteen Principles of Belief (The Ani Ma'amin's and/or the
Yigdal) are baseline standards for our discussion group.
To expand just a tad:
-No personal attacks. If you must err, err on the side of friendliness and
civility.
-The binding authority of halacha is a given (the definition of
"halacha" is a broad one, and may be subject to discussion, but it is an
absolutely Orthodox one!).
-No translations are necessarily expected, as we would prefer to keep the
discussions on high levels. To that end, contributors are encouraged to
keep up as a high a level of discourse as possible.
-I will be consulting: a) with group members I see on a regular basis
face-to-face; b) with a core group of "charter members" to ask their
advice and counsel in maintaining group standards. Warnings and
terminations (chas v'shalom!) will be issued after such consultations. I
ask that any other group member not hesitate to contact me with their
concerns and suggestions.
If you e-mail me your consent to these general guidelines, I will gladly
add you to our group.
Kol Tuv,
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Mara d'Asra, Cong. Bais Tefila; Listowner, baistefila discussion group
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_8
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 01:32:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Atzmus
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Gut voch and Gut yahr.
Regarding my cousin Isser Zalman's post:
I would like some clarification of your understanding of "atzmus" - a
vague term if there ever was one!!
I am told that the Rebbe once said in a sicha that a rebbe is therefore a
memutza hamekasher, and not a memutza hamafrid, so praying to him was
allowed. Explanation?
A more general question: If someone says that something is so al pi
Torah, but he has no basis to it, isn't that close to, if not equivalent to,
defying normative parameters of "Mesorah?" This is a question that may be
posed n broader swaths of Chassidus than Lubavitch, and, if I am to
understand correctly, was a major objection of the anti-Kabbalists to
Kabbala.
E.g. if I say that you are not allowed to eat roast potatoes on Shabbos al
pi din, and I admit that I have no proof for this from Chazal, Rishonim
etc., but "that's just the way it is", am I not bypassing all forms of
transmission of law and theology?
YGB
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_8
Message-ID: <353999EF.15FB@terra.co.il>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 09:30:07 +0300
From: Mechi Fendel
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mordechai Torczyner
CC: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Changing Kitniyos Minhag
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
All of the "mixed" marriages (Sphardic + Ashkenazic) within the families
of our garin in Sderot completely follow the husband's minhagim (l'kula
and l'chumra) as far as birchot haMitzvot, kitniyot, tefilla + nusach,
etc. I don't think it's at all a good idea (even if there IS a basis in
halacha - very unlikely) to break up families and to have different sets
of minhagim within one cohesive family unit.
I DO know that the Ashkenazic husbands will eat by their Sephardic
in-laws - but not ketniyot - even though the chicken was cooked in the
same pot as the rice (and/or with the rice) - of course, there are the
more machmirim that demand separate pots for their ktniyos-free food.
(Duv, my husband, says that it's not necessary). My kids were treated
to Bamba (peanut/corn starch snacks) on Shabbos (Parshat Shmini - not
Pesach in E"Y), and theoretically, we could've cooked up some rice in
our Pesach pots for Shabbos...
Mechi
Mordechai Torczyner wrote:
>
> Hello,
> Someone told me this morning that he had seen a source permitting
> the following:
> For a Sefardi woman, who married an Ashkenazi man, and now no
> longer eats Kitniyos on Pesach, to eat Kitniyos when they visit her
> parents' home on Pesach.
> Does anyone know of a source permitting this? Am I missing
> something obvious?
> Mordechai
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> WEBSHAS! http://www.virtual.co.il/torah/webshas & Leave the Keywords at Home
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Take care - Bye for now,
Mechi Fendel
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
mechi@terra.co.il
Making Supercomputing Personal...
Terra Computers Ltd., POB 3019
Omer Indusrial Park, 84965 ISRAEL
tel: 972-7-6483444/6/7
fax: 972-7-6483445
http://cool.terra.co.il
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_8--
----__ListProc__NextPart__893044874446522437--
From baistefila@shamash.org Tue Apr 21 00:01:15 1998
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:01:12 EDT
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
From: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: BAISTEFILA digest 9
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.05 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart__893131272446565636"
----__ListProc__NextPart__893131272446565636
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BAISTEFILA Digest 9
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) (no subject)
by gershon.dubin@juno.com
2) Previous posting Re: Mashiach & Chabad
by Isser Zalman Weisberg
3) Mashiach Ben Yosef etc.
by Isser Zalman Weisberg
4) Re: Mashiach Ben Yosef etc.
by "Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer"
5) To the listowner
by gershon.dubin@juno.com
6) Kabbala
by Ken Miller
7) Re: To the listowner
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
8) shir hashirim
by "Pechman, Abraham"
9) Mashiach Ben Yosef
by Isser Zalman Weisberg
10) Re: Mashiach Ben Yosef
by "Ari Z. Zivotofsky"
11) Re: What is the b'racha on Pizza?
by katzco@juno.com (Steve Katz)
12) A question about Maggid
by Ken Miller
13) Re: shir hashirim
by Hershel Ginsburg
14) Moshiach ben Yosef
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
15) Moshiach ben Yosef
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
16) Re: A question about Maggid
by micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
17) RE: A question about Maggid
by Ken Miller
18) Re: Mashiach Ben Yosef etc.
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
19) Re: Kabbala
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
20) translating terms
by "Avram Sacks"
21) Re: translating terms
by margol
22) Re: translating terms
by "Avram Sacks"
23) Re: 8 forwarded messages...
by margol
24) mesorah/text
by margol
25) Cantilllation Errors That Change Meaning
by rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
----__ListProc__NextPart__893131272446565636
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_9"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 13:17:04 -0400
Message-ID: <19980419.131829.13630.0.gershon.dubin@juno.com>
From: gershon.dubin@juno.com
Hello,
Many of us read Shir Hashirim this Pesach, and I wonder how the parshios
are broken up in different megilos. I have always seen the entire megila
broken into perhaps four or five parshios, but the megila I read from
this year had a new parsha every few pesukim. Any sources or
observations?
Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com
http://pw2.netcom.com/~gdubin/lcs.htm
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Bais Tefila Learning Group
From: Isser Zalman Weisberg
Subject: Previous posting Re: Mashiach & Chabad
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 15:21:43 -0400
Over Yom Tov we had many quests in Toronto from many cities. After giving
them my letter for review, several small revisions were suggested for
better accuracy. If anyone is interested in an updated (and spell-checked)
version please ask. As well, if you wish to pass it on to anyone outside
our group, use the updated version. I can send it as plain e-mail, or (a
nicer formatted) attached Word 5 doc.
I would like to brefly respond to Akiva's question re: "atzmus melubash b'guf"
"My question is this: To me, someone who has not studied these concepts of
Chassidus at all, this sounds not only odd, but very close to the Christian
concept of G-d coming to the
physical world in human form. This leads me to either of two conclusions:
either (A) These two ideas are very different, and only appear similar
because I have not learned either one in any depth, or (B) These two ideas
are indeed similar.....
Akiva,
These ideas are not only different but are exact opposites. Christianity
views JC as having an independent G-dlike identity to whom they turn to in
prayer etc. The concept of "atzmus melubash b'guf" means that the specific
Tzadik to whom this is applied has completely nullified his existence to
the point where it is completely transparent, and can only reflect the true
essence of all reality - "ain od melivado". He has no self-identity or ego
and no desire other then to fulfill the will of his Maker. Like the
halachic concept of "ma shakona eved kone rabbo" as the Rashba in Kiddushin
explains it goes directly to his master because the servant has no
independent (halachic) status. A Chassid does not look as his Rebbe as a
great person with great powers etc., But rather as an absolute eved Hashem,
who Hashem uses as a vehicle to project some of His G-dly powers.
I will address your second question re: Mashiach ben Yosef later.
Isser Zalman
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Bais Tefila Learning Group
From: Isser Zalman Weisberg
Subject: Mashiach Ben Yosef etc.
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 02:54:04 -0400
Dear Mechi,
You write: "I've heard (le'havdil) Herzl and the State of Israel being
given similar "characteristics" of Moshiach Ben Yosef (Kibutz Galuyot,
binyan HaAretz - the gashmius part, at least, etc.)"
-Chas V'Shalom! I don't know who you've heard these things from, but they
are clearly shtusim v'havolim. According to all Torah sources Mashiach Ben
Yosef is a person (not a state) who is a great and holy Tzadik. I will
elaborate in future postings. Forgive me, but I had to correct such a gross
misrepresentation.
You ask further: "I would be interested in an elaboration (especially since
the Rebbe never came to E"Y and never espoused for a mass aliyah of Chabad
chassidim... "
-The mission of Kibutz Galuyos is primarily for Mashiach ben Dovid, not Ben
Yosef. Mashiach Ben Yosef's primary mandate is to bring Yiddin closer to
Yiddishkeit, and to spread penimius HaTorah as explicit in Kol Hator (A
collection of the teachings of the Gra on Mashiach and Geulah).
You ask further: "BTW do you encourage aliyah within your community? Do
other Shluchim?"
-The Rebbe encouraged a limited number of chassidim to move to E.Y. to help
strengthen yiddishkeit there, not as a part of the Geulah process. The
Rebbe did not discourage it as did some other Chassidic leaders, but he
made it clear that before the geulah our primary mandate is help our
brethren all over the world, not to abandon them for our own spiritual
benefit of being in Eretz HaKodesh.
Dear Yosef Gavriel,
You write: "I would like some clarification of your understanding of
"atzmus" - a vague term if there ever was one!!"
-In simple terms: Kabbalah/Chassidus discus various levels wherein Hashem
projects a limited aspect of his infinite Self. i.e., Chochmah D'Atzilus
refers to a level where the aspect of Hashem's Chochmah is manifest. Hashem
Himself is infinitely beyond any form of chochmah. Yet his infinite powers
also contain the capability to limit himself in relation to creation, and
project the aspect of Chochmah. Atzmus refers to Hashem as he is "within
Himself" not in relation to creation, and not a limited projection of a
specific facet of His Infinite Self.
You write further:
"I am told that the Rebbe once said in a sicha that a rebbe is therefore a
memutza hamekasher, and not a memutza hamafrid, so praying to him was
allowed. Explanation?"
-This is not correct. Praying to any being other then Hashem is avoda zara
r"l. The Rebbe explained why we ask a tzadik to pray FOR US, or to give us
a bracha - a practice which goes back to Biblical times and is mentioned
many times in Chazal? Why don't we go directly to Hashem? (Like the Gra
omited "machnisei rachamim..." from slichos).The Rebbe was not presenting
his own explanation but simply reiterating what it says in many seforim
(see Tshuvos Chasam Sofar Orech Chaim #166), that we don't go to Tzadik
because of his own spiritual greatness, as this would be a memutza hamafsik
(-this is the term used, not hamafrid), but because of his closeness to
Hashem. In simple terms: We go to a Tzadik not because we want to go to
someone other then Hashem chas v'sholom, but precisely the opposite,
because he brings US closer TO Hashem. A simple example: One may approach a
king's minister with a request for one of two reasons. A) He wants the
minister to fulfill his request because he cannot, or is afraid to approach
the king. B) He wants the minister to bring him or his request TO THE king.
The above is a simplistic explanation. It goes deeper.
You write further:
"A more general question: If someone says that something is so al pi Torah,
but he has no basis to it, isn't that close to, if not equivalent to,
defying normative parameters of "Mesorah?"
-Of course. What are you referring to?
Isser Zalman
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Message-Id: <353BB315.650F@mail.biu.ac.il>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:41:57 -0700
From: "Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer"
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Bais Tefila Learning Group
Cc: Isser Zalman Weisberg
Subject: Re: Mashiach Ben Yosef etc.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Isser Zalman Weisberg writes:
> You write: "I've heard (le'havdil) Herzl and the State of Israel being
> given similar "characteristics" of Moshiach Ben Yosef (Kibutz Galuyot,
> binyan HaAretz - the gashmius part, at least, etc.)"
>
> -Chas V'Shalom! I don't know who you've heard these things from, but they
> are clearly shtusim v'havolim. According to all Torah sources Mashiach Ben
> Yosef is a person (not a state) who is a great and holy Tzadik. I will
> elaborate in future postings. Forgive me, but I had to correct such a gross
> misrepresentation.
Chachamim, guard thy tongues: The author of appellation Mashiach ben
Yosef to Herzl was given by none other than Rav Kook Zatsal.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 08:36:38 -0400
Subject: To the listowner
Message-ID: <19980420.083648.13054.1.gershon.dubin@juno.com>
From: gershon.dubin@juno.com
Dear Rabbi Bechofer,
The posts are coming in as individual email messages; reply to
gives the sender's address. Is this correct? Shouldn't they be
forwarded from the listowner's address both for reply considerations and,
more basically, to identify the source of the post?
Gershon
PS Are the MailJewish, Torah Forum and Bais Medrash lists still up?
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Message-ID: <4CAE1408EC88D1118CC00060971BEF4805A16F@smtp.datacorinc.com>
From: Ken Miller
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Kabbala
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 08:57:59 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Rabbi Bechhofer wrote: <<< If someone says that something is so al pi
Torah, but he has no basis to it, isn't that close to, if not equivalent
to, defying normative parameters of "Mesorah?" ... ... E.g. if I say
that you are not allowed to eat roast potatoes on Shabbos al pi din, and
I admit that I have no proof for this from Chazal, Rishonim etc., but
"that's just the way it is", am I not bypassing all forms of
transmission of law and theology? >>>
Well, let's clarify what is meant by "no proof from Chazal". If there is
nothing in the Gemara about it, but there are sources in Zohar, that
would be okay according to Mesorah, wouldn't it?
And if I cannot cite any sources from anywhere, and I say "that's the
way it is, because that's how it's been for generations", that has NOT
bypassed ALL forms of transmission, because it sounds to me like a good
example of "mimetic" tradition.
Akiva Miller
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 08:40:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: gershon.dubin@juno.com
cc: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: To the listowner
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
To clarify for new subscribers:
To the best of my understanding, MJ TF & BM still exist. This group is not
meant to supplant them, c"v, but to serve more as a discussion group than
a list - and it assumes a high level of discourse. It is not an
appropriate forum for beginners, although they certainly will not be
excluded. The scope of acceptability is broader than BM, narrower than TF,
and the subscibership is intended to be more homogenous than MJ.
I believe part of the recent for those lists infrequent appearance is that
they are moderated, i.e., posts must be compiled and edited by the
listowner/moderator. I do not have the time for this - and probably
neither did they!
Thus, while the group is loosely supervised, it is really a discussion
group, not a list. As such, unless you send a specific command to the
listproc to send you baistefila as digests, you will get every message
individually, with an identifying tag in the message - but not in your
mail header. When you hit the reply button, your response will go out to
the entire group automatically.
If you set your mail option to digests, however, you will recieve one
message a day, at about 12:00 a.m. EDT, of all the day's posts - and will
not receive them individually - and will receive an identifying mail
header, plus a list of topics discussed at the top of your message, very
similar to the MJ, TF & BM formats.
Kol tuv,
YGB
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 gershon.dubin@juno.com wrote:
> Dear Rabbi Bechofer,
>
> The posts are coming in as individual email messages; reply to
> gives the sender's address. Is this correct? Shouldn't they be
> forwarded from the listowner's address both for reply considerations and,
> more basically, to identify the source of the post?
>
> Gershon
> PS Are the MailJewish, Torah Forum and Bais Medrash lists still up?
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
>
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Message-ID: <642B2955645BD0118FEE00805FD4068228DDE2@MWEXCHANGE>
From: "Pechman, Abraham"
To: "'baistefila@shamash.org'"
Subject: shir hashirim
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:53:05 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Does anyone know when they leined shir hashirim in eretz yisroel this
year?
The pri megadim seems to feel that we want to avoid the first day of yom
tov; that leaves achron shel pesach for chutz la'aretz (since we'd
rather have shir hashirim on a Shabbos). In eretz yisroel, however, the
only day of Pesach on Shabbos was the first day of yom tov. Which
preference takes precedence - to lein shir hashirim on Shabbos, or to
not lein the megilla on the first day of yom tov (leaving shvi'i shel
pesach, or friday, for the megilla)?
I'd appreciate any sources which might give guidance here.
Thanks.
Avi Pechman
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Bais Tefila Learning Group
From: Isser Zalman Weisberg
Subject: Mashiach Ben Yosef
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:42:51 -0400
Dear Reb Arya,
You write:
"Chachamim, guard thy tongues: The author of appellation Mashiach ben
Yosef to Herzl was given by none other than Rav Kook Zatsal."
Please provide a source as this is incomprehensible to me. Is this in any
of his seforim, or just hearsay?
If it is true, I am sure he meant that the phenomenon of creation of the
State of Isreal and Hertzl's activities in this regard were generated
through the spiritual powers of Mashiach Ben Yosef. But not that Herzl
himself was THE Mashiach Ben Yosef r"l.
Isser Zalman
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Message-Id: <353B742D.5CD39170@lsr.nei.nih.gov>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 12:13:33 -0400
From: "Ari Z. Zivotofsky"
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Bais Tefila Learning Group
Cc: Rabbi Robbie and Shoshanah Bechhofer
Subject: Re: Mashiach Ben Yosef
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Does anyone know what the halacha is where a baal koreh makes an error
in trup but it affects the meaning? For example, where he paused in the
wrong place putting a word in the wrong phrase thereby changing the
meaning.
Ari Zivotofsky
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
To: kgmiller@datacorinc.com
Cc: baistefila@shamash.org
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 12:00:55 CDT
Subject: Re: What is the b'racha on Pizza?
Message-ID: <19980420.133131.17030.0.KatzCo@juno.com>
From: katzco@juno.com (Steve Katz)
You might be interested to note that "shetov's" in Miami Beach has posted
a sign intidating that
the b'racha for pizza is HAMOTZI!
Best wishes to all.
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Message-ID: <4CAE1408EC88D1118CC00060971BEF4805A178@smtp.datacorinc.com>
From: Ken Miller
To: Bais Tefila Learning Group
Subject: A question about Maggid
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:12:21 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Everyone has a personal chiyuv to say kiddush on Friday night. The
people seated around the table fulfill this mitzvah through the
procedure of "Shomea K'oneh". For that procedure to work, the one making
has to have kavan to be motzi the others, and they need to have kavana
to be yotzay from him. As I recall, the Mishna Brura recommends that the
one saying Kiddush should remind the others of this fact, so that they
will pay attention and have kavana to be yotzay. This is true even
though (it seems to me) the situation itself demonstrates that everyone
does have this in mind.
There are many other cases as well, where the halacha (pick your
favorite sefer) demands or recommends that everyone specifically intend
to be motzi the others, or to yotzay from the chazan / baal koray /
whatever. Megilla, Shofar, and Parshas Zachor are examples which come to
mind quickly. And even if we are not specifically instructed to have it
in mind, still, the lomdus of the seforim shows that "Shomea K'oneh" is
the mechanism by which the multitudes fulfill their obligation.
It is very common (or it used to be, anyway) for one person to recite
Maggid at the Seder, and for everyone else to simply listen. Many
seforim (such as the R'mah) point out that the leader must explain the
story in the vernacular, or else the [uneducated] women and children
will not be yotzay. But I have never heard any explanation of what is
accomplished by explaining it in the vernacular.
It is clear from all the seforim (take your pick) that the mitzva of
hagada is to TELL the story. I have never seen anyone suggest that there
is a mitzva to HEAR the story.
Now, I grant that there is a difference between k'riah and hagadah. If
the mitzva were to read the story, as it is for Megilas Esther, then one
could simply read the text, and understanding is not required. But to
*tell* over the story, we need someone to tell the story *to*, and that
person must understand what is being said. Thus, even a person who is
alone at the seder must tell it *to* himself, and chachamim will tell it
to each other. And in a family situation, the father will tell it to his
children.
But suppose those children are above Bar Mitzvah age? And in fact, they
are presumed to be above that age, because otherwise, the seforim would
say "He must explain it in their language so that the women and children
will understand and he will be yotzay his chiyuv to tell the story." But
that's not what they say. They say, "He must explain it, so that THEY --
the women and children -- will be yotzay." [Even if one would say that
the children are below Bar Mitzva, this is clearly not true of the
women, who are obligated d'oraisa just like the men.]
Nu, so how is it that the rest of the family is yotzay? Has anyone seen
a sefer which explicitly says that "Shomea K'oneh" is the mechanism
here? Or is there some other principle at work?
Akiva Miller
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 23:46:33 +0300
To: "Pechman, Abraham" ,
"baistefila@shamash.org"
From: Hershel Ginsburg
Subject: Re: shir hashirim
Cc: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
I can't give you sources but just the simple local observation... We (at
least in Ramot 1 in Yerushalayim) read Shir HaShirim on the the First day
of Pessach. I suspect it was the same elsewhere in the country.
Apparantly the local p'sak or evolved practice does not follow the Pri
Megadim in this instance.
hg
>Does anyone know when they leined shir hashirim in eretz yisroel this
>year?
>
>The pri megadim seems to feel that we want to avoid the first day of yom
>tov; that leaves achron shel pesach for chutz la'aretz (since we'd
>rather have shir hashirim on a Shabbos). In eretz yisroel, however, the
>only day of Pesach on Shabbos was the first day of yom tov. Which
>preference takes precedence - to lein shir hashirim on Shabbos, or to
>not lein the megilla on the first day of yom tov (leaving shvi'i shel
>pesach, or friday, for the megilla)?
>
>I'd appreciate any sources which might give guidance here.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Avi Pechman
.............................................................................
Hershel Ginsburg, Ph.D.
Licensed Patent Attorney
and
Biotechnology Consultant
Shechtman St. 38/9
Jerusalem, 97225
Israel
Phone: 972-2-587-0068 FAX: 972-2-571-0390
e-mail: ginzy@netvision.net.il
.............................................................................
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:24:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Moshiach ben Yosef
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In "HaMisped biYerushalayim" Rav Kook discusses mashiah ben yosef and the
entire sugya in Sukka 52. It is obvious that the context is the death of
Herzl. However, Rav Kook does not make the equation explicit. It is not
clear whether he is referring to Herzl or to certain spiritual tendencies
in the Jewish people. The essay is found in Maamrei haReiyah.
In general, Rav Kook is a much more careful thinker than his admirers and
detractors allow for. He is to be read line by line, not page by page.
There are other discussions of Mashiah ben Yosef in Orot.
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Isser Zalman Weisberg wrote:
> Dear Reb Arya,
> You write:
> "Chachamim, guard thy tongues: The author of appellation Mashiach ben
> Yosef to Herzl was given by none other than Rav Kook Zatsal."
>
> Please provide a source as this is incomprehensible to me. Is this in any
> of his seforim, or just hearsay?
> If it is true, I am sure he meant that the phenomenon of creation of the
> State of Isreal and Hertzl's activities in this regard were generated
> through the spiritual powers of Mashiach Ben Yosef. But not that Herzl
> himself was THE Mashiach Ben Yosef r"l.
>
> Isser Zalman
>
>
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:27:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
cc: Shalom Carmy
Subject: Moshiach ben Yosef
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I forwarded a reference to the group on Rav Kook and Herzl. I
accidentally erased the author's identity. It was from Reb Shalom Carmy.
Sorry!
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Message-Id: <199804202127.RAA11133@cs4.nyc.deshaw.com>
Subject: Re: A question about Maggid
To: kgmiller@datacorinc.com (Ken Miller)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:30:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I'm missing something in Akiva's question. He appears to assume that the
primary point of maggid is speech -- telling the story. Or perhaps zechirah
(remembering), which in general involves an act of speech.
Why aren't we assuming the mitzvah isn't more like limud Torah? This is after
all, the whole purpose of using a question-answer structure. Or, perhaps, we
can say that the mitzvah is to view oneself (or to make oneself be viewed as;
lir'os vs lihar'os) as though one came out of Mitzrayim.
These two alternatives, aside from explaining why one can fulfil one's
obligation by listening alone, also offers an answer to another question.
Telling and remembering Yetzias Mitzraim (the Exodus) is a daily (and nightly)
requirement. What then is extra about maggid? So, we can say that this
learning, or the reenactment is a unique Seder night, obligation.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5786 days!
micha@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 20-Apr-98)
For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Message-ID: <4CAE1408EC88D1118CC00060971BEF4805A17A@smtp.datacorinc.com>
From: Ken Miller
To: "'micha@aishdas.org'"
Subject: RE: A question about Maggid
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 17:17:59 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
First of all, it seems to me that you sent this only to me, and that the
rest of BaisTefila did not get it. If you wanted them to get it, I
suggest that you probably hit the "Reply" button, when you should have
press the "Reply to all button". Go back to my original, and see what
happens in those cases.
But, as regards Maggid...
<<< perhaps zechirah (remembering), which in general involves an act of
speech. >>>
That's okay by me. Zechira is the basic reason we say Kiddush, but a
guest will not be yotzay kiddush unless he either recites it himself, or
the host has kavana to be motzi him. Why does is this required for
kiddush but not for maggid?
<<< Why aren't we assuming the mitzvah isn't more like limud Torah? This
is after all, the whole purpose of using a question-answer structure.
>>>
If I sit and listen to a shiur, am I yotzay limud Torah? I hope so! On
the other hand, I recall learning that one *does* have to mouth the
words in order to be yotzay learning, and that one should *not* simply
scan the words with one's eyes. I think the details on this point are at
the begining or Orach Chaim, in the halachos of Birkas Hatorah in the
morning. Specifically, can one learn silently (with one's eyes or by
listening to a shiur) prior to saying Birkas Hatorah? Can one say Birkas
Hatorah and then learn silently (again, with one's eyes or listening to
a shiur) instead of reciting those mishnayos as printed in the siddur?
My recollection is that one should not read with one's eyes prior to
saying Birkas Hatorah, but neither should one rely on reading with the
eyes for the kiyum of Birkas Hatorah. I can live with being machmir on
both sides of that safek. But a shiur? I can live with it if someone
tells me that listening to a shiur on tape in the car might be "dveykus
to Hashem", but only a safek limud Torah. But if someone says that I
should not say Birkas HaTorah and then go to a shiur because merely
listening to the shiur is a mere safek Talmud Torah, that would be very
difficult to accept. I will agree with you whole heartedly on that.
But even so, the comparison of learning and maggid only goes so far. To
me, the pasuk "v'higadta" means to tell, and that means to be the active
teller of the story, not the passive audience. And my goal is to find a
source which shows how the passive audience is m'kayem the obligation to
*tell* the story.
--- If you want to repost your comments to the group, feel free to quote
me in any manner you wish. Or, you can repost it as originally written,
and then I'll send a version of this one out, so that the sequence does
not confuse anyone.
Akiva
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:33:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: Isser Zalman Weisberg
cc: Bais Tefila Learning Group
Subject: Re: Mashiach Ben Yosef etc.
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Is atzmus then equivalent to ein sof - the infinite indescribable essence
of Hashem that even ein sof is a misnomer for? If so, it cannot be
melubash b'guf - unless melubash means something else than it normally
does. I know the Tanya calls mitzvos levushim - is levush here being used
in that context? If not, as enclothed, it is an untenable position, to say
that tzimtzum allows this kind of activity - does it allow G-d to create a
rock he cannot lift?
> Dear Yosef Gavriel,
> You write: "I would like some clarification of your understanding of
> "atzmus" - a vague term if there ever was one!!"
> -In simple terms: Kabbalah/Chassidus discus various levels wherein Hashem
> projects a limited aspect of his infinite Self. i.e., Chochmah D'Atzilus
> refers to a level where the aspect of Hashem's Chochmah is manifest. Hashem
> Himself is infinitely beyond any form of chochmah. Yet his infinite powers
> also contain the capability to limit himself in relation to creation, and
> project the aspect of Chochmah. Atzmus refers to Hashem as he is "within
> Himself" not in relation to creation, and not a limited projection of a
> specific facet of His Infinite Self.
> You write further:
> "A more general question: If someone says that something is so al pi Torah,
> but he has no basis to it, isn't that close to, if not equivalent to,
> defying normative parameters of "Mesorah?"
> -Of course. What are you referring to?
> Isser Zalman
>
The very concept of "atzmus melubash beguf!"
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:35:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: Ken Miller
cc: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Kabbala
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Ken Miller wrote:
> Rabbi Bechhofer wrote: <<< If someone says that something is so al pi
> Torah, but he has no basis to it, isn't that close to, if not equivalent
> to, defying normative parameters of "Mesorah?" ... ... E.g. if I say
> that you are not allowed to eat roast potatoes on Shabbos al pi din, and
> I admit that I have no proof for this from Chazal, Rishonim etc., but
> "that's just the way it is", am I not bypassing all forms of
> transmission of law and theology? >>>
>
> Well, let's clarify what is meant by "no proof from Chazal". If there is
> nothing in the Gemara about it, but there are sources in Zohar, that
> would be okay according to Mesorah, wouldn't it?
>
I was referring to the Zohar itself. There are scholars in the group who
are doubtless more familiar with the polemic than me, but it seems the
Zohar did not achieve ready universal acceptability because it was not
part of the chain of mesorah until the 1300's.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
From: "Avram Sacks"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Message-Id: <862565EC.007699DC.00@notes.cch.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:55:19 -0500
Subject: translating terms
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
This is an open request to list members to translate terms when posting
messages, particularly phrases and idioms, that might not be readily found
in a good Hebrew/English dictionary, such as Alkalai (sp?), or even in a
Hebrew/Hebrew dictionary.
As explained by our listowner, "this list [is] a discussion group that
discusses classic and
current Torah topics at a high level. Many of the participants are scholars
or very knowledgable lay people." Therefore, a basic level of Hebrew
knowledge is presumed. Nonetheless, many of the postings will be more
accessible to a broader range of list members if philosophical terms, terms
of art, and idioms, such as those that might define or refer to certain
halachic concepts or categories, etc. are translated. Although
translation at that level may still seem to be a nuisance, it will make it
possible for some list members to get that much more out of the postings.
Thanks.
//Avi
Avram Sacks
Chicago, IL
sacksa@cch.com
achdut@enteract.com
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Message-ID: <353BCECA.5ACA0121@ms.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:40:10 -0400
From: margol
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Avram Sacks
CC: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: translating terms
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Can we please have a clarification on this request. I don't want to
seem exclusionary and by all means I'm always interested in encouraging
intelligent discussions, but isn't it in the charter sent out earlier by
Rabbi Bechoffer that translations are not expected due to the nature of
expectations of the group membership. I am not against translations per
se, I just want to know what the policy is.
Thanks.
Take care,
Joel
Avram Sacks wrote:
>
> This is an open request to list members to translate terms when posting
> messages, particularly phrases and idioms, that might not be readily found
> in a good Hebrew/English dictionary, such as Alkalai (sp?), or even in a
> Hebrew/Hebrew dictionary.
>
> As explained by our listowner, "this list [is] a discussion group that
> discusses classic and
> current Torah topics at a high level. Many of the participants are scholars
> or very knowledgable lay people." Therefore, a basic level of Hebrew
> knowledge is presumed. Nonetheless, many of the postings will be more
> accessible to a broader range of list members if philosophical terms, terms
> of art, and idioms, such as those that might define or refer to certain
> halachic concepts or categories, etc. are translated. Although
> translation at that level may still seem to be a nuisance, it will make it
> possible for some list members to get that much more out of the postings.
> Thanks.
>
> //Avi
>
> Avram Sacks
> Chicago, IL
> sacksa@cch.com
> achdut@enteract.com
--
Joel
Margolies
margol@ms.com
W-212-762-2386
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
From: "Avram Sacks"
To: margol@ms.com
Cc: baistefila@shamash.org
Message-Id: <862565EC.007D662C.00@notes.cch.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:19:14 -0500
Subject: Re: translating terms
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
This is in response to Joel's question about translation policy. Following
Rabbi Bechhofer's posting of what I thought was a proposed welcome message,
I suggested to him that some degree of translation might be appropriate.
He, in turn, suggested that I submit my suggestion to the list as an open
request. Prior to submitting my request to the list, I shared its wording
with Rabbi Bechhofer who thought that it was "excellent."
I acknowledge that a decision to translate or not translate will be
subjective, and I wouldn't want list members to be inundated with yet
another set of rules to follow. However, I felt that even though discussion
was to be "at a high level" it shouldn't exclude those who are interested
and want to follow, if not contribute, if given enough sufficient
information within the post. Hence, my bias against a "hamayvin yavin"
[lit. "those who understand, will understand"] standard and bias towards
translation of that which is not readily gleaned from a good dictionary.
Some will translate more, some less. But, in the end, more will benefit.
/Avi
Avram Sacks
sacksa@cch.com
achdut@enteract.com
>
Can we please have a clarification on this request. I don't want to
>seem exclusionary and by all means I'm always interested in encouraging
>intelligent discussions, but isn't it in the charter sent out earlier by
>Rabbi Bechoffer that translations are not expected due to the nature of
>expectations of the group membership. I am not against translations per
>se, I just want to know what the policy is.
>Joel
>Margolies
>margol@ms.com
>W-212-762-2386
>Avram Sacks wrote:
>>
>> This is an open request to list members to translate terms when posting
>> messages, particularly phrases and idioms, that might not be readily
found
>> in a good Hebrew/English dictionary, such as Alkalai (sp?), or even in a
>> Hebrew/Hebrew dictionary.
>>
>> As explained by our listowner, "this list [is] a discussion group that
>> discusses classic and
>> current Torah topics at a high level. Many of the participants are
scholars
>> or very knowledgable lay people." Therefore, a basic level of Hebrew
>> knowledge is presumed. Nonetheless, many of the postings will be more
>> accessible to a broader range of list members if philosophical terms,
terms
>> of art, and idioms, such as those that might define or refer to certain
>> halachic concepts or categories, etc. are translated. Although
>> translation at that level may still seem to be a nuisance, it will make
it
>> possible for some list members to get that much more out of the
postings.
>> Thanks.
>>
>> //Avi
>
> Avram Sacks
> Chicago, IL
> sacksa@cch.com
> achdut@enteract.com
--
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Message-ID: <353BDB2E.C3B327A6@ms.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:33:02 -0400
From: margol
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bais Tefila
Subject: Re: 8 forwarded messages...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I'm sorry to have taken so long to reply to this, but I do have a reply:
(see below)
> In my humble oppinion, your view on the universality of a general
> framework of ethics is not only unreasonable, but goes actually against
> Chazal. The Midrash states quite clearly that if the Torah wouldn't have
> been given (Chas Vesholom) we would have extracted the value against
> stealing, murder as well as modesty from nature. While you may be right
> that specific applications of an inherent universally accepted ethical code
> to particular conditions may vary from person to person (or culture for
> that matter), the general principles remain the same.
I'm not sure the original source- probably Medrash Raba or Zohar, but it
is quoted in the Nefesh HaChaim, sha'ar 4 that Hakadosh Baruch hu was
"mistakel b'oraisa u'bara alma". The Torah is the blueprint for the way
the world works. Although it is true that chazal say that many laws
would have possibly been learned from nature (I'm not sure that that's a
given, the famous medrash/gemorrah aside, - I recently heard a shiur
that quoted the Rambam and seemed to say that even Shiva Mitzvos B'nei
Noach had to be taught) I believe that these things existing in nature
are due to their inclusion in the Torah. Their creation has Torah
concepts already imbued in their actions, not the other way around!!
The torah dictates what moral behavior is - even to animals, they do not
dictate what morals should be in the Torah! I pose a simple question -
if some animals were naturally homosexual, would we deduce that it was
moral to do that? (I agree that the example is challengeable) Also, I
think that you are in error when you say that the "general principle
remain the same". There are cultures that allow killing humans for fun
and or personal reasons, or just for food. There are cultures that
believe that it is morally agreeable to dress immodestly (see many
European, scandinavian, greek cultures). I would want to know what
would be the definition of remaining the same. Any moral standard that
you can bring has multiple exceptions which I think can only be
explained by saying that morals evolve and are not necessarily innate.
Furthermore, any general principles that do apply universally could also
be explained by a root in Torah which is of course the best selling book
of all time! One textual proof against the existence of inner morality
is a gemorrah in Kedushin - and tosfos' comments. I believe it is
around daf 32 - not sure. The gemorrah speaks about a Jews intention
snad says that once a Yid decides to do something good, he gets schar
even if he ends up not doing it, be cause we know that deep down he
wanted to do it. The flip side is learned for bad things - no
punishment until deed is done. Tosfos comments(perhaps only implies
some of this) that the reverse is true for goyim - bad thoughts are
punished even without action as they are "innerly" (innately) evil.
Perhaps it's not the best Ra'aya but it does point to differences in the
mindset of Yiddin and goyim which might be termed as moral baselines and
expectations.
> Your suggestion that mitzvos such as honoring parents do not
> necessitate any natural human feelings seems unreasonable to me as well.
> How about loving your fellow Jew, is that as well meant to be fullfilled
> mechanically, without any genuine human feelings towards the pain or
> suffering of the other?! Are we asked to be mevaker choleh or (rachmono
> litzlon) menachem an oveil without truthfully empathizing with the pain?
>
I do not disagree. The question at hand is how do we determine how we
feel in particular instances. I don't think that are emotions are
beyond our control. People who let their emotion control them generally
act irrationally and often outside of the moral bounds of society -
killing out of passion for example. The Torah defines right and wrong
for us and we are then able to channel our natural emotions in the
proper way. For example we have a mitzva to be makriv korbanos. I
imagine that in the days of the eis HaMikdash, one would get great
simcha seeing the process of the korban being fulfilled on an animal of
ones chosing. This simcha is felt because Hashem has told us that this
is something that he desires. If, however, we did not know that this
was ratzon Hashem, we might feel pity and anger over a barbaric ritual
slaughtering and the needless waste of animal lives. This would be a
possible route for our emotions had we not been given the Torah. Case
in point, those who do not accept Torah min HaShomayim say exactly
this!!!
We may have innate emotions that tell us to hate, love, empathise, etc -
but their usage is a totally separate thing. We have emotions within us,
but I definitely feel that emotion and morality are, even according to
those who believe that morality is innate, very different things. I
mean isn't it clear that our desires (which may or may not be emotions)
are not showing us the proper derech! "Lo Sasuru!!" We strive to bring
our inner feelings in concert with the torah - My Rebbe once quoted a
lyric that he felt was Hashem's message to us "See me, hear me, touch
me, feel me" Note that that last bit is feel me. Hashem wants us to
use our emotions to catharsize with him, to emulate him. How can we
believe that we could truly exist and have worthwhilke lives or even a
moral underpinning without the Torah.
I hope that I haven't just rambled and there is something intelligent
above. Please forgive me if that is not the case. I welcome all
comments.
Take care,
Joel
> My understanding is that Torah wants us to engage are natural human
> feelings while doing so only because we're commanded to serve Hashem with
> those feelings. Since all that Hashem created ( including our natural
> human feelings) is only Lichvodo, we must therefore serve him with our
> natural feelings and not inspite of them. An analogy to this we find in the
> mitzva of oneg Shabbos. We are asked to take pleasure in the consumption of
> tasty foods while at the same time doing so not merely to fullfill our
> natural desires but rather because of Kvod Shabbos. Modern psychology may
> have a hard time digesting such conciliations between natural human
> tendecies and subservience to a higher order.
> Eli Silberstein.
> ( BTw Allthough my e-mail address mentions chana's name only the posts so
> far are Eli Silberstein's and not Chana's. Dont blame her for my mistakes!)
--
Joel
Margolies
margol@ms.com
W-212-762-2386
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Message-ID: <353BDEEC.60708A13@ms.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:49:00 -0400
From: margol
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bais Tefila
Subject: mesorah/text
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi,
Mr Maryles posted this before:
>As far as your example of kiddush goes, I'm not sure it applies because
>the minhagim of either standing or sitting for kidush has it's roots in
>legitimae Mesorah. Generally speaking, the Lithuanian minhag is to sit
>and the chasidishe minahag is to stand. I was basicly refering to
>halachos that seem not to be the mesorah that the current generation is
>plucking from textual sources.
Is this true? We are chasidishe and stand. However, until very
recently, unless in a Sepharadi house, I do not recall seeing people sit
on Friday night - even after VaYichulu was over. I do for sure know
someone who's father learned in Chachmei Lublin and stood for the whole
thing. The person has recently changed to sitting after VaYichulu
because his son gave a shiur on it and concluded that you have to sit.
I am pretty sure that they are not chassidish. Is this an abnormality,
or is the misnaged/chasid difference not so clear cut.
And BTW, doesn't this beg the question - how can we challenge those who
definitely had the same knowledge as we do today - probably more and
made a different decision. Obviously halacha gives us a forum, but I
guess I'm just coming back to the original discussion - how de we know
what should stay the same due to mesorah even if the halacha seems to
present a different option. Another example is the way we pronounce our
hebrew. Reb Moshe has a fanmous teshuva that says that you have to
pronounce hebrew like your father did - even though it seems to be clear
to him that some ways are more correct than others. The Gra even made
very streong statements about certain pronunciations that he felt were
incorrect. Is there any guideline to follow?
If everyone feels that this has been hashed over already, just reply to
me if you have an answer. If the answer is in the article - I still
haven't seen it yet but intend on getting (attempting to get) a copy.
Thanks.
Take care,
Joel
--
Joel
Margolies
margol@ms.com
W-212-762-2386
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 22:04:05 -0400
From: rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
Message-Id: <199804210204.WAA07349@mcs.drexel.edu>
To: baistefila@shamash.org, rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu
Subject: Cantilllation Errors That Change Meaning
Ari Zivotofsky asks whether cantillation errors that change
meaning NECESSITATE public correction of the the Baal Koray.
A good example is the verse (in Emor)
"And he (the priest)--a women in her virginity will he marry
If this is cantillated in the wrong way we obtain
And he is a women (ahem...an obvious mistake!!)
This was discussed at length in MJ 2 years ago...and they
generated a nice list of examples (I even brought an error
in a famous Chumash (Haftorath Nachamu) which is blasphemous
(As an exercise the reader is invited to read the Hertz Chumash
and try and find it)
The accepted halachah is clear:
--Errors ignoring "grammatical beautification" are not corrected
(like saying AAARetz vs EhRetz)
--Errors changing the underlying root/prefixes or suffixes are corrected
We can now understand the question more clearly:
Since trup SIMULTANEOUSLY are
* relective of meaning (and hence should be corrected)
* relective of beautification (and hence should not be corrected)
which way do we decide?
The answer is that we are not required to correct trop when the error
changes meaning.
To support this note that:
* A "grammatical beautification error" that changes meaning (like avoiding
a construct state) would NOT be corrected
* A change in RADICAL that doesn't change meaning DOES require correction
Consider
In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the Adamah=Earth
As this last example shows it is not CHANGE IN MEANING that requires
correction (as is popularly thought) but rather CHANGE IN UNITS OF MEANING
(like radicals, prefixes suffixes). Using this conceptual distinction we
can explain the examples above and arrive at the halachah:
* The following change UNITS of meaning (but not meaning) and require correction
--saying ADAMAH vs ERETZ in Gen 1,1
--Omitting a word (even like Eth which has no meaning)
* The following change MEANING but not UNITS OF MEANING and require no correction:
--Saying e.g Yod (kamatz) vs Yad (Patach) (and ignoring construct states)
--Saying "And he is a women" (Note no units of meaning have been change just where we pause)
Finally,for those who think that "meaning" is a fixed concept I bring the beautfbeautiful controversy between RADACK and RAV HIRSCH on the DAGETSH IN THE KUPH
of MikDash in Shirath Hayam (Pronounced--- Mik ke dash)
--RADACK: Holds that all such Dageshs are BEAUTIFICATION (and hence don't cgechange meaning)
--RAV HIRCH: Holds that Mik ke Dash = An abbreviation = Min Kodesh = "From sanctity" and represents an ABSTRACT NOUN denoting HOLINESS (rather than "THE TEMPLE")
So...according to Rav Hirsch...leaving out the Dagesh changes meaning (it
doesn't mean the TEMPLE but "HOLINESS"
NEvertheless Rav Hirsch would not require correction.
On a final note....since "proper pausing" in universally admitted to be
"part of proper speech and delivery" it would follow that WE ARE REQUIRED
to say Kriath Shmah daily WITH THE TROP (or at least with PAUSES on
all SEPARATOR CANTILLATIONS) (See the EXPLICIT statement of Rambam
Laws of Shma, 2:8-11....the criteri he gives for Kriath Shma (in other
languages is "According to the norms of proper speech in these languages")
Thus Cantillations (with pauses and conncections are rquireed...I think the
above insight refutes (???) the comments of the Raavad on the Rambam's criteria
Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA rhendel @ mcs drexel edu
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_9--
----__ListProc__NextPart__893131272446565636--
From baistefila@shamash.org Wed Apr 22 00:01:36 1998
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:01:33 EDT
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
From: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: BAISTEFILA digest 10
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.05 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart__893217693446608846"
----__ListProc__NextPart__893217693446608846
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BAISTEFILA Digest 10
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Horav Kook zt"l
by Isser Zalman Weisberg
2) atzmus melubash baguf
by Saul Weinreb
3) Re: shir hashirim
by "Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer"
4) Suggestions and HELP set (fwd)
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
5) Re: Shiurim
by katzco@juno.com (Steve Katz)
6) Re: Cantilllation Errors That Change Meaning
by "Ira L. Jacobson"
7) Rebbe & Mashiach ben Yosef
by cbrown@bestware.com
8) Mashiach ben Yosef
by Ken Miller
----__ListProc__NextPart__893217693446608846
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_10"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_10"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_10
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Bais Tefila Learning Group
From: Isser Zalman Weisberg
Subject: Horav Kook zt"l
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 01:09:02 -0400
Dear Chaim B. & Yosef G.
YG writes:
"...Please try to avoid phrases that sound confrontative like the "r"l",
because, as distasteful as this may be to you, you will find out...Rav
Kook's shitta.
CB writes:
"The reference by Rav kook to M. ben Yosef appears in his hamous hesped for
Herzl.... Furthur evidence that this was R' Kook's position can be gleaned
from his letter to the Aderet...so why the chas v'shalom's, r"l, etc?"
I was not aware that this was Rav Kook's shitta.I must see the sources
inside before further commenting. I wrote r"l not because I am unaware of
Herzls accomplishments. In Chabad, as you probably know, we refrain from
judging or putting down any Jew. But rather because the sources identify
MBY as a Tzadik of great proportions, and I felt it was a mockery to apply
this to Herzl, irrespective of his great accomplishments. Even without
seeing the actual sources, I am quite certain that Horav Kook zt"l is
referring to the metaphysical dimension of MBY not the actual person. Can
anyone fax me (905/881-3735) the relevant pages from his seforim, as I
don't have easy access to them.
CB askes:
"What evidence is there to identify the Lubavitcher rebbe with Mashiach ben
Yosef?"
The "evidence" relies on some of the statements of the Rebbe, and hence on
the premise that the Rebbe was one of the Gedolei Hador, and his words
carry the weight of an accepted Torah source. If this is accepted I can
proceed.
Isser Zalman
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_10
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980420235649.006c7530@icarus.cc.uic.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 23:56:50 -0500
To: baistefila@shamash.org
From: Saul Weinreb
Subject: atzmus melubash baguf
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
We've been discussing this idea of atzmus melubash baguf, what it is, and
where the sources are. I do not pretend to know much about Chassidus
Chabad. I don't. However, there is so much discussion about the concept
of a Rebbe in Chassidus, and everyone seems to be focusing on Chabad and
Chabad's interpretation of what a Rebbe is, specifically what the previous
Rebbe ZT'L's view was. I would just like to interject that among the rest
of the Chassidic world, there is a vast literature that can be used as a
source for understanding what a Tzaddik is and what is his role.
I've posted on this subject a little bit before and I hope I can bring a
new angle to this discussion. For one thing, as far as I know, the
Chassidic literature, outside of Chabad (since I am not familiar with the
Chabad literature), never uses such a term to refer to a Tzaddik PLEASE
correct me if I am mistaken. The primary foremost sefer on the subject of
"Tzaddikism" is obviously the Noam Elkimelekh. He makes some very strong
statements about the power of a Tzaddik, but he doesn't ever call a Tzaddik
an "Atzmus Melubash BaGuf." In fact, when he explains why we go to a
Tzaddik to ask him to be mispallel for us, he gives us the secret of the
Tzaddik's power. Ahavas Habriyos. See P' VaYishlach the fourth "Oh Yomar"
on the first pasuk.
The reason why a Tzaddik can accomplish the lofty "Tziruf Haosiyos" which
is required for the guarantee of Tzaddik Gozer VehakB'H Mekayem is because
he has the middah of Ahavah for every single human being in this world. He
explains that Yaakov Avinu had to fight Eisav's malakh for an entire night,
because he was deficient in his love for his archenemy eisav. After a
night of "Vayavek" he achieved pure ahavah even for him.
I will now take a modern drush approach to this and suggest what I feel is
the pshat in the holy holy Noam Elimelekh. The Tzaddik has a true, deep,
and intense love for every single one of us, because we are people, we are
Jews and we have all of the qualities that make us who we are. His love
for each human being even exceeds our own love for ourselves, because he
sees through our own shortcomings, and loves us anyway. Therefore he will
daven before Hashem Yisbarach with a broken heart, he will smash down the
gates of shamayim for us, even greater than we could ourselves. This is
the "magical formula" of a tzaddik according to the Noam Elimelekh.
May I add that this is the way a rebbe brings his Chassidim closer to
Hashem, through unbound, unlimited Ahavah. Let us refocus on what a
Tzaddik is for real in Chassidus, not on these lofty undefined Kabbilistic
terms of dubious origin, and suspicious meaning. The Lubavitcher Rebbe
ZT'L can serve as a rare modern example to us all of this true and real
ahavah for ALL of Hashem's creatures. Let us learn from him, and not
debase his memory by turning him into some strange idol that does not
belong in our religion.
Shaul Weinreb
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_10
Message-Id: <353CBF83.6910@mail.biu.ac.il>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 08:47:15 -0700
From: "Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer"
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: "Pechman, Abraham"
Cc: "'baistefila@shamash.org'"
Subject: Re: shir hashirim
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Avraham Pechman asks:
Does anyone know when they leined shir hashirim in eretz yisroel this
year?
We read it this year (from a Klaf with Brachot) on the First day of Yom
Tov.
Aryeh
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_10
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:16:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
cc: Yosef & Shoshana Bechhofer
Subject: Suggestions and HELP set (fwd)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Two Suggestions:
1. Please be meticulous as to the subject heading of your mail. Not all
group members are interested in every topic discussed. If you make sure
the subject heading reflects accurately the topic of your mail, it will
enable readers to pick and choose the topics they are interested in and
pass on others.
2. Please check mail you receive as individual posts to see if it was sent
publicly or privately. If a group member sends you a private note, it is
probably a good Halachic (Cherem d'Rabbeinu Gershom) and ethical practice
to request their permission before quoting that person in a public
posting.
As many group members have inquired as to the various alternative ways to
receive mail, I am attaching the listprocessor help file on the topic. All
you need to do is substitute the list name: BAISTEFILA wherever you see:
in the commands below.
Kol Tuv,
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:08:36 EDT
From: Shamash ListProcessor
To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Subject: HELP set
Syntax: [quiet] set [