Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 070

Monday, June 19 2000

• the term hillula
• Shavuos Minhag
• Re: the term hillula
• tefillim & mezzuzah
• tzizit - mezuzah
• Veloh yireh becha ervat davar
• Re: Shavuos Minhag
• Re: Pasul mezuzah
• Re: Shavuos Minhag
• Re: Mezuzah - ones
• Re: Shavuos Minhag
• Re: Pasul mezuzah
• Re: Pasul mezuzah
• what is 1/5th? 1/60th?

Because the term hillula actually means progression from one status to a
new one -- marriage is one, one's neshoma being re-united with the
aibishter is another.

Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:48:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Shavuos Minhag

<<I do not understand ho regular cheesecake has anywhere near the mezonos
for kevius seudah, and I think there is a question if lokshen kugel 
counts as pas ha'ba b'kisanin.>>

	It doesn't;  in fact the cheesecake that we had was not even a mezonos
bracha.  So you need to add other cake,  and you're in the mokom
seuda/kvius seuda balancing act which I alluded to.

	Lokshen kugel is,  AFAIK,  ma'aseh kedeirah.  Do you have reason to call
it pas haba'ah bekisnin?
 
<<From one who ate only milchig the first day of Shavuos,>>

	From one who ate milchig and fleischig on both days of Shavuos.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:17:30 -0400 Alan Davidson <perzvi@juno.com>
writes:

<<Because the term hillula actually means progression from one status 
> to a new one -- marriage is one, one's neshoma being re-united with 
> the aibishter is another.>>

	I see what you say about uniting with the RBShO as a hilula;  I question
the generality of progression from one status to another.


Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> : To make this fellow feel better, RSZA showed him the Shu"t Rav Poalim (4:2)
> : which says that, since he thought all this time that he was wearing kosher
> : tefilin, and the mistake was an onais, it's as if he performed the mitzva.
> : (L'chorah, the same reasoning should apply to the pasul mezuzah, except
> : perhaps the segulah aspect.)
> 

The rav of my shul said that he personally had a story with RSZA and
his tefillin. Once he gave in his tefillin to be checked and the
sofer did damage. When he wanted to collect money he first went RSZA
whose first reaction was why would he give in tefillin to be checked?

However, the rav felt there was a difference between tefillin and mezuzot 
are mentioned expilicitly that they should be checked twice every 7
years. Has anyone hear anything specially from RSZA in terms of mezuzot
and not tefilin?

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

> 
> > FWIW, RSZA also says that, nowadays (since tefilin are made b'hidur), one
> > should not have his tefilin checked without a specific reason.  (Usually, it
> > is the opening and closing of the batim that cause the most problems.) The
> > same thing applies to mezuzas that are placed securely "inside" doorposts.  
> 

I was also told in the name of Rav Hutner that one does not need to check
ones tzizit because of the increased quality of modern materials.

Eli Turkel

RY Zirkin quoted a pasuk in Devarim to the effect that nakedness is
intrinsically objectionable since it is supposedly included in the torah
that is said to have preceded creation.  He subsequently accepted the
correction that the pasuk reads yireh - not yehra'eh.  Actually, neither
the Torah that we have nor the one that may have preceded creation has,
or is expected to have, nekudot.  The mesorah that we have regarding the
transmitted Torah should not be expected to pertain as well to the
other-worldly torah.  I also wonder at the basis for assuming that the
other-worldly torah is comprised of the same organization of letters
into the words and sentences of our Torah, or if it is composed of
words, at all.  Perhaps it is just one long string of letters as, I
believe, the GRA had suggested, or a set of principles.  Even the idea
of a torah that preceded creation does not seem to be universally
acknowledged.  Such an idea is based on the pasuk in Mishlei, "G-D
acquired me as the first of his way, prior to His initial works".  That
acquisition is taken to refer to the other-worldly torah - not to the
principle of wisdom which is the ostensible subject of these passages.
However, we find the targum Yerushalmi translating the first verse of
the Torah as, "With wisdom did G-D create".  Even some of the medrashei
chazal which take the above pasuk in Mishlei to refer to the torah,
consider the first verse of the Torah to allude to the given Torah in
the sense of, "Because of the Torah - called reishit, were heaven and
earth created".  What, then, are the sources that consider an
other-worldly torah to be identical to the Torah that we have?

Yitzchok Zlochower

On 16 Jun 00, at 11:11, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:

> The KS"A is Machmir more then the M"A in O"C 494 (Al Asar), and the Rivash, 
> WRT E"R the D"T says is Machmir.

I would say so. The Magen Avraham is quite explicit that unless 
one had hard cheese, he does not have to be mafsik for Birchas 
HaMazon, although he says to make sure to take another 
tablecloth (which I did BTW). 

Two asides about that Magen Avraham (OC 494:6): Interesting 
drash there about Maacholei Chalav (cf. the Gmara in Ksuvos 60a). 
Also - the Levushei Srad on the side there brings a "Mem Yud, Clal 
76, s'if katan 5." Anyone know what "Mem Yud" stands for? (I'm 
sure someone will :-) 

> The Rivash says the Bracha on milk/product can Patur also meat/product 
since 
> they cannot be eaten together, and one need not make a new Bracha (Rishona) 
> for the meat Tavshil, he is not discussing an after Bracha as he clearly 
> holds one can eat them in the same meal (meat after milk) thru Kinuach 
> Vhadacha, hence the D"T which is discussing the Mogein Avraham (and brings 
> others who claim that there is a To'us Hadfus in the M"A) 

What is the To'us HaDfus?

> >  He then suggests that even according to those 
> >  who would hold that you do need to bentch in between, this may 
> >  not be the case if what's being discussed is a cheese tavshil and a 
> >  meat tavshil, for which he cites Eliyahu Rabba 173:8.
> 
> This is also quoted in the above mentioned D"T, however when loking into 
> Poskim cheese cake and/or blintzes IMHO would not be considered "Tavshil".

Cheese cake, I can understand (especially if you're talking about 
the kind of cheesecake that is never baked in an oven), but why not 
blintzes? Because they're generally fried? (BTW - I did not have 
blintzes at the meal, and the cheesecake got demolished at 
Kiddush when we came back from the Kotel in the morning - long 
before lunch :-) 

> Just to add, LAN"D the Zohar it would seem that there is no difference 
> between milk and cheese and hence hard and soft cheese, (Vtzorich Iyun on the 
> M"M in the Ramoh on Y"D).

The Darchei Moshe in YD 89:2 brings the minhag from a Mordechai 
(Chulin 687) which brings a Tshuvas MaHaRam (615) where the 
Maharam was machmir on himself because of a Maaseh Shehaya 
to wait after cheese like you do after meat (six hours), but he was 
meikil on chicken. The Darchei Moshe then brings from the Issur 
v'Heter HaOroch Clal Mem Din Ches and Yud who distinguishes 
between hard and soft cheese. He refers to not eating meat in the 
same Seudah as a "midas chasidus," He then brings the Beis 
Yosef you cited from OH 173 and the Zohar (Mishpatim 155a) and 
says that if the MaHaRam had seen the Zohar, he would not have 
been meikil for chicken (and he doesn't say that if the MaHaRam 
had seen the Zohar he would not have been meikil for soft cheese).

The Beis Yosef in OH 173 also brings the MaHaRam. On its face 
the Zohar does not make the chiluk between hard and soft cheeses 
(I agree with you). There seems to be agreement between the Beis 
Yosef and the Darchei Moshe that the MaHaRam never saw the 
Zohar. But can we also say that the Magen Avraham and the Issur 
v'Heter, both of whom were mechalek between hard and soft 
cheese, never saw the Zohar? That seems to be a stretching it a 
bit LAN"D.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 10:56:06AM -0400, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
:               L'chorah the shmirah is the zechus of being m'kayeim the
: mitzvah-so if you are considered to having been m'kayeim mitzvas mezuzah it
: should help for shemirah too.

It would seem that mezuzah is two things: a chiyuv, as well as being a segulah.
I am told this statement is made quite clearly in the Zohar and in Seifer
Razi'el haMal'ach, but I'm hunting down mar'eh mekomos from toras nigleh in
which chazal indicate this role for mezuzah. Iy"h, I'll post what I found at
a later date.

Litvaks tend to dismiss segulos and such as possible violations of "tamim
tihyeh im H' E-lokecha" and issues of "al minas likabeil p'ras". But I noticed
when I spoke to him privately about the subject that R' Dovid Lifshitz zt"l
didn't deny the effectiveness of segulos, rather he argued against them
playing a large role in one's yahadus.

I have though a thought to ease the quesiness of us rationalists. Perhaps the
mishnah "vichi yadav shel Moshe osos milchamah... vichi nachash meimis..."
isn't about these two events in particular, but applies to non-halachic
means of gaining shemirah. IOW, "ela lomar lach" that whenever you look
to your mezuzah (or seifer Raziel, roitah bindl, etc...) and think of the
Shomeir Yisrael...

This resolves my question of how R' Chaim Vilozhiner's assertion that shefa
only carries through people can fit with this notion about mezuzah. But only
by majorly ammending the notion of segulos.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Jun-00: Shishi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 22b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

In a message dated 6/17/00 7:36:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

>  Two asides about that Magen Avraham (OC 494:6): Interesting 
>  drash there about Maacholei Chalav (cf. the Gmara in Ksuvos 60a). 

See Pri Mgodim Al Asar, and the Orchos Chayim is Mitzayin to Noda Byehuda 
Mahadura Tinyana Y"D 35, and Chidushei Chasam Sofer on Shabbos 143.

>  Also - the Levushei Srad on the side there brings a "Mem Yud, Clal 
>  76, s'if katan 5." Anyone know what "Mem Yud" stands for? 

The Minchas Yaakov (Pirush from R' Yaakov Risher author of Shvus Yaakov, on 
the Toras Hachatos), brings the Shirei KNH"G that one should Bentch and wait 
an hour, and concludes that so should be done, -all this is also brought in 
the Darkei Tshuva Y"D 89:4-

>  >hence the D"T which is discussing the Mogein Avraham (and brings  
>  > others who claim that there is a To'us Hadfus in the M"A) 
>  
>  What is the To'us HaDfus?

That makes distinction and allows for soft cheese to be eaten in the same 
meal, see Beir Mayim Chayim on Parshas Vayeira on the Possuk Vayikach Chemoh 
V'cholov.

>  > however when loking into 
>  > Poskim cheese cake and/or blintzes IMHO would not be considered 
"Tavshil".
>  
>  Cheese cake, I can understand (especially if you're talking about 
>  the kind of cheesecake that is never baked in an oven), but why not 
>  blintzes? Because they're generally fried? 

See Poskim in Y"D 89 (and O"C 173, 494) that something as thick as cheesecake 
or blintzes may not be considered any different then plain cheese or milk for 
after/before meat.

>  > Just to add, LAN"D the Zohar it would seem that there is no difference 
>  > between milk and cheese and hence hard and soft cheese, (Vtzorich Iyun 
on 
>  > the M"M in the Ramoh on Y"D).

Shuv Ro'esee in Kaf Hachayim O"C 173:2 Mfurosh so, Uboruch Shekivanti.

>  The Darchei Moshe in YD 89:2 brings the minhag from a Mordechai 
>  (Chulin 687) which brings a Tshuvas MaHaRam (615) where the 
>  Maharam was machmir on himself because of a Maaseh Shehaya 
>  to wait after cheese like you do after meat (six hours), but he was 
>  meikil on chicken. The Darchei Moshe then brings from the Issur 
>  v'Heter HaOroch Clal Mem Din Ches and Yud who distinguishes 
>  between hard and soft cheese. He refers to not eating meat in the 
>  same Seudah as a "midas chasidus," He then brings the Beis 
>  Yosef you cited from OH 173 and the Zohar (Mishpatim 155a) and 
>  says that if the MaHaRam had seen the Zohar, he would not have 
>  been meikil for chicken (and he doesn't say that if the MaHaRam 
>  had seen the Zohar he would not have been meikil for soft cheese).

As he is quoting the Beis Yosef who doesn't mention there any difference 
between hard and soft cheeses, (Bnosof that in the case of the MaHaRaM it 
doesn't say what kind of cheese it was, although the Issur Vheter can be 
learned that he holds this distinction in the MaHaRaM).

>  There seems to be agreement between the Beis 
>  Yosef and the Darchei Moshe that the MaHaRam never saw the 
>  Zohar. But can we also say that the Magen Avraham and the Issur 
>  v'Heter, both of whom were mechalek between hard and soft 
>  cheese, never saw the Zohar? That seems to be a stretching it a 
>  bit LAN"D.

They saw it and ruled against it, (WRT the M"A I would add LAN"D at least for 
Shvuos).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

>>>In which case, piku'ach nefesh is an example of oneis -- by melachos
Shabbos as well. If so, wouldn't the machlokes you're discussing be akin to the
whole inyan of hutrah vs dechuyah? That too us a ma'aseh avreia bi'oneis.<<<

Pikuach nefesh is a seperate din. The gemara doesn't suggest that the heter
of pikuach nefesh is based on ones rachmana patrei (End of Yoma?).

In a message dated 6/18/00 1:06:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> From one who ate milchig and fleischig on both days of Shavuos

This was the Minhag of the Munkatcher Rebbe (see Darkei Chayim Vsholom), Umpi 
Hashmuah this was also the custom of the L. Rebbe.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 10:56:06AM -0400, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
:               L'chorah the shmirah is the zechus of being m'kayeim the
: mitzvah-so if you are considered to having been m'kayeim mitzvas mezuzah it
: should help for shemirah too.

It would seem that mezuzah is two things: a chiyuv, as well as being a segulah.
I am told this statement is made quite clearly in the Zohar and in Seifer
Razi'el haMal'ach, but I'm hunting down mar'eh mekomos from toras nigleh in
which chazal indicate this role for mezuzah.

There is, however, a well-known mishnah (R"H 3:8) that pretty explicitly
questions the effectiveness of segulos. "Vichi yadav shel Moshe osos
milchamah... vichi nachash meimis..." The assumption behind this mishnah
is that Moshe's hands or a bronze snake can't bring down shefa without
"meshbadim es libam la'Avihem sheBashamayim".

(It is interesting to note that R' Yehoshu'a ben Levi in the Yershalmi (sham)
casts this mishnah in terms of mazalos and fate, and understands that Moshe
mixed up their mazalos. So, it would seem that according to RYbL, mazal is
subject to kabbalas ol malchus Shamayim...)

Applying the same idea here would greatly alter the notion of segulah. It
would also again reopen the question about why a mezuzah with a chezkas
kashrus that is actually posul would be any less effective of a shemirah.
After all, is it any less effective at bringing one to accepting ol malchus
Shamayim?

OTOH, it would justify bringing a mezuzah in for checking when one r"l is
in an eis tzarah. Actively seeking the kashrus of the mezuzah means that
one is thinking about the mezuzah and therefore serves its role as a reminder
about the true Shomeir Yisrael.

This resolves my question of how R' Chaim Vilozhiner's assertion that shefa
only carries through people can fit with this notion about mezuzah. But only
by majorly ammending the notion of segulos.

The Yerushalmi (Pei'ah 1:1) has the story where Rebbe and a king exchange
gifts. The king gives Rebbe jewel, and Rebbe responds by sending him a
mezuzah. When asked about the disparaty in value, Rebbe answers that while
the king gave him something that requires guarding, Rebbe gave something
that guards the owner. Implied in this story is that a mezuzah would guard
a non-Jewish, presumably not even monotheistic, king.

The two quotes appear to me to be soseir -- one says that kavanah is required,
the other says that even someone not likely to have proper kavanos can benefit.
Perhaps one could say that Rebbe meant his words to the king as a statement
about what the mezuzah means to us, not what it is worth to the king. However,
in light of the context -- giving something the recipient would consider a
valuable present -- I find it a stretch.

In Menachos (33b), there is a machlokes between the chachamim and R' Chanina
miSura. The chachamim say that one should place the mezuzah as close to
the entrance as possible so that one encounters the mezuzah immediately. R'
Chanina miSura says so that it may protect the house. The gemarah is then
clear that it is Hashem who protects, giving the famous contrast to a king
who is protected by his army vs Hashem Who protects His people. Similar
to the story with Unkelus, except said by R' Chanina ben Chama without a
naarative.

This gemara also seems to say the cheftzah itself protects, not only the
mitzvah. While the chachamim disagree with R' Chanina miSura, there is
no indication they disagree with the notion that the cheftzah is a conduit
of shefa. It could be that they merely preferred to explain the hidur
mitzvah in terms of nigleh. Disagreeing on one level doesn't mean they
disagree on the other.

Second, it is unclear whether the conclusion disagrees with R' Chanina
miSura, or is clarifying that he means that HKBH protects the home via
the cheftza of the mezuzah.

Either way, R' Chanina miSura's words fit my suggestion about how to understand
the mishnah in R"H. Placing the mezuzah as close to the entrance as possible
does maximize one's chance of seeing the mezuzah and "meshabeid es libo".

Amongst the rishonim, all I found that was clearly one way or the other was
Tosafos (Bava Metzia 102a) who explain the issur against taking down mezuzos
when moving out of a home in terms of the mazikim that could ch"v make prey
of the next inhabitants.

Letter 18 of RSRH's 19 Letters comes out clearly and strongly against viewing
mitzvos as magical mechanisms for "influencing and resisting theosophical
worlds and anti-worlds". However, it still allows for the idea I propose
above -- segulah as a kavannah aid.

Litvaks tend to dismiss segulos and such as possible violations of "tamim
tihyeh im H' E-lokecha" and issues of "al minas likabeil p'ras". But I noticed
when I spoke to him privately about the subject that R' Dovid Lifshitz zt"l
wouldn't deny the effectiveness of segulos, rather he argued against them
playing a large role in one's yahadus.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Jun-00: Shishi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 22b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 12:37:26PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
: It would seem that mezuzah is two things: a chiyuv, as well as being a
: segulah. I am told this statement is made quite clearly in the Zohar and in
: Seifer Razi'el haMal'ach...

I meant to mention, the latter is the source for the Shakai and the
kemeiah-like inscription written on the back of the k'laf.

-mi

According to the footnotes in my Sapirstein Rashi (in Naso, when describing
the addition of 1/5th to the penalty), halacha is that this meant to add an
amount so that when you are done adding, it is equal to one fifth.  

E.g., suppose a person stole the equivalent of 100 shekelim.  The guilty
party must pay 125, because the extra 25 is 1/5 of the new total of 125.
Of course, in modern usage we would describe it as paying an extra 1/4th,
since 25 is 1/4 of 100.

My first question is: where do we learn this from?

After discussing this with R'Micha, it occurs to me that the above logic
would also imply that in the case of batul bishishim, the "1/60th" is
measured _after_ the drop of milk falls into the meat (or vice versa).

Any thoughts on this, or the above question?

Thanks,

Eric

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]