Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 144

Saturday, March 3 2001

• Correction on Yerushalayim
• "cookies"
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #3, MC vol. 1 p. 74
• Purim seudah on Friday
• Amalek
• Re: 7 Adar - tachanun
• Re: Haftorah of Shkolim and Rosh Chodesh
• RE: Purim seudah on Friday
• Re: 'Mesorah' and sefer 'Masores siyog laTorah' (3v) by Rav Moshe Tzuriel
• RE: "cookies"
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #3, MC vol. 1 p. 74
• Making songs out of Psukim (was: back to the books)

A short time ago I commented on Areivim or on Avodah concerning the number of 
occurrences of Yerushalayim chaseir and malei in the Tanakh.

I slipped up.  I wrote that there are 620 chaseirim and five m'lei'im.

The truth is that there are 664 chaseirim and five melei'im.

The 664 chaseir occurrences are located in 620 pesukim. 

n other words some sentences have more than one occurrence and I copied  down 
the number of sentences instead of the total occurrences.

Thanks to Barry Jacobson for drawing my attention to the discrepancy.

I'm sure this important correction is of great interest to all. :-)

kol hab'rakhot,
David

R' Daniel Wells and I have been discussing off list why or why not a
person could falsify information given at a web site in order to access
the site in complete privacy.

He posited an issur of geneivas daas.
I said that it may be true geneiva,  as the person has put a condition on
use of his site which is not being fulfilled. My example was that if I
say I'll give you $1000 if you run
around the block,  and you take the money and don't run (sorry!!) you're
over geneiva.

He answered that he accepts this only if the tenai is related to the
money;  I answered that
kol tenai shebemamon kayam.

It occurred to me while listening to a tape of a recent shiur by Rav
Yisrael Reisman on midas sedom (very highly recommended;  R' Joel,  it's
44) that this might apply.  Since it costs me nothing to provide the site
to one more person one it's up,  and I derive no benefit from the
information (the site in question says that they use it only for
statistical tracking meaning,  AIUI,  the site owner's curiousity), 
perhaps kegon zeh kofin al midas sedom.

Any comments?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

At 09:08 AM 3/2/01 -0500, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
>(I was informed ny first answer was really Telz so this answer I think is my
>Brisker teretz)

>One of the shiurim I heard from my Rebbi was to explain the Ritva's shita in
>shas is that hannah is equivilant to actual kesef. In other words, one way
>to look at hano'oh is that it causes gemiras daas and you are now m'chayuv
>yourself or in the case of marriage agreeing to be married. The Ritva learns
>hano'oh that we view it as actual kesef. (Disclaimer: any mistakes in this
>sevara are mine)

I am temporarily breaking my Mon. to Thurs. code of silence to comment on 
the correctness of this passage. [In a later submission, RYGB adds that
he means "to agree to and expand upon these paragraphs." -mi]

To Brisk, hano'oh is an anathema. There is a shtickel in the back of the 
Griz on the Rambam (they are all anonymous letters, but I believe the 
mesorah is that this one is to RYBS) where he explains mekkudeshes me'din 
arev (and arvus itself) as totally divorced from hano'oh - specifically, 
IIRC, bavorning the Ritva.

That is why, among other things, true blue Briskers do not make a berocho 
on besomim by Havdolo, nor Shehecheyanu on new fruits, etc. - they hold 
these berachos require a shiur in hano'oh,  whichthey hold we lack tools to 
measure.

Thus, a sevoro that will *voluntarily* (sometimes you're stuck) employ 
hano'oh is inherently non-Brisk.

The Mshna Berura (in Hilchos Shabbos) says that when Purim is on Friday one
should be makdim the seudah before chatzos. 
How do you understand this. Does this mean one should start before chatzos
or does it mean most of the seudah should be before chatzos. One Rav I know
holds the latter-that the seudah should be before chatzos. I am mesupak how
to understand the Mishna Berura

cmarkowitz@scor.com 
212-390-5297 

R' Gershon wrote:
> Rav Nebenzahl in this week's  sicha says that Amalek is genetic. Just as
> not every ohev sholom verodef sholom is a kohen,  so is not every soneh
> Yisrael an Amaleki. And he says that if we don't even know nowadays mi hu
> Yehudi,  we certainly don't know mi hu Amaleki.

so then, does it follow that if there is a kohen who is not an ohev shalom
/ rodef shalom (and many know a few (or more)), "felt in his kehunah.
Because the trait is genetic?

In a message dated Fri, 2 Mar 2001 9:25:17am EST, Eli Turkel
<Eli.Turkel@kvab.be> writes:
> The shul were I daven in Brussels dis not say tachanun on 7 Adar though they
> do not omit it on yahrzeits of admorim.
> Is this common?

Yes!

KT
HJoel

Steve Katz: <S'fardim add the first and last posuk of the haftorah of Rosh
Chodesh at the end of the Haftorah of Parshas Sh'kolim.>

Eric Simon: <We did that at our Chabad shul, too. (Just to add another data
point).>

SK: <What is the makor?>

ES: <I'm looking forward to learning that, too.>

SK: Torah Temimah mentions this but does not give a reason or explain.

This is just a little complicated, but really a kleine zakh.

Beit Yosef, OH, siman 425 and also in siman 144 discusses the issue
of what haftoro you read on shabbos if rosh hodesh is both Shabbos and
Sunday (excuuuse me: der ershter tog!). Since it is midina dig'moro both
to read "hashomayim kis'i" on R'Hodesh and "mohor hodesh" if R'H is on
Sunday, which takes precedence? He brings a ra'ayo from his shver (one
of his few references to him in the Beis Yosef), R. Yitzhaq Saba', that
you read "hashomayim kis'i," but then says that the minhag is to read
"hashomayim kis'i," and "after they finish [that] haftoro, they read
the first and last posuq of 'vayomer lo Y'honoson,' since the morrow is
also R'H." (Similarly in his summary in the SA, he specifically labels
reading the first and last posuq as a minhog, not halokho.) He then
asks the question that since the haftoros are from different n'vi'im,
and the mishna assers skipping from on novi' to another, how is this
minhog possible? He quotes a t'shuvo of T'rumas HaDeshen (THD, siman 20)
on that issue.

The THD is referring the old minhog which existed from the time of the
earliest rishonim up until recent time of reading a special haftoro on
the shabbos of a hasuna: "sos osis." This minhog is mentioned by all
the Ashk'nazi rishonim, and the Beis Yosef also brings it in OH siman
144. The minhog in Austria was that on a shabbos of the 4 parshiyos,
they would read, in addition to the haftoro of the parshiyos, part of
"sos osis." The THD answers first that according to the Mordekhai,
the issur of skipping from novi to novi was only in the time of Hazal
when they leined from qlaf, because then it took a long time to roll,
but now when we lein in "kuntresim" (apparently sifra d'aftarta, though
it is not clear whether they were on qlaf), it is easy to skip and
so is muttar. He further says that according to Rashi, the issur was
teruf hada'as, and that only applies if there is a m'turg'mon (see his
reasoning there). At any event, he recommends not adopting such a minhog
of skipping from novi to novi, unless it is already an established custom.

The Beis Yosef in siman 144 also quotes in the name of R. Manoah that
the minhag was to read "sos osis" b'al peh and a similar terutz from
the nimmuqei Yosef that "sos osis" is not a real haftoro, but just a
zemer b'alma. In siman 445, he implies that that is the case also with
the first and last p'suqim, and so therefore there is no problem.

The R'mo, following the THD, disagrees, and says one should not read
from two different n'vi'im. So he says (siman 445, see it yourself)
that if the haftoro of "sos osis" falls on a shabbos where the regular
haftoro is in Y'sha'yo, only then do you read both haftoros, otherwise
the haftoro that is midino dig'moro is dohe "sos osis."

[This is brought in the MB. But who still reads "sos osis"? It used to be
done in Germany up until recently: is it still done in Washington Heights?
Anyone know anything about it? It is just ironic, that now shuls have
aufrufs, which is not a minhog from the rishonim, and spend a lot of
time throwing candy, but the old minhog brought by all the rishonim and
aharonim has disappeared (except in some German q'hillos I know outside
of America).]

Anyway, back to our issue (you hoped I had forgotten, I'm sure): the
R'Mo says we never read two haftoros, except for "sos osis" if it falls
on a week when you read from Y'sha'yo. The M'habber says you read the
first and last p'suqim of mohor hodesh after "hashomayim kis'i." It
appears from the SA that the M'habber thinks this is a special rule on
R'H, since he doesn't mention that you read the p'suqim of the other
haftoro in siman 428, when he talks about the special haftoros from the
drei vokhen through shabbas shuva, nor in siman 685 when he discusses
the 4 parshiyos, even though, as noted by the posters who started this,
sh'qolim can fall on Rosh Hodesh. On the other hand, there is not clear
proof from him, since his logic to be mattir the two haftoros in 445
can be extended to other cases. And so the S'faradi poskim hold, that
in any case where there are two haftoros which are both midino dig'moro
on one shabbos, you read the one that the M'habber holds is the iqar,
and then you read the first and the last posuq of the other one.

The M'habber's logic, of course, would not necessarily work in a shul
where you read haftoros from a qlaf. However, as has been discussed
here before, the custom of reading haftoros from qlaf in recent times
originated with the Vilner Ga'on; prior to him, no one had done it for
several hundred years. So S'faradim don't have the problem (although
I'll bet that some S'faradi yeshivos, now that they wear European black
hats and black coats, are adopting these minhogim as well).

From a logical point of view, there is a point to reading the first and
last posuq. There is no halokho that you have to read straight without
skipping, and there are numerous haftoros where we skip, and the Rambam
has even more.

The only requirement is that you have read 21 p'suqim unless the inyan
ends. Therefore, in case where both haftoros are midino dig'moro, and you
have read the 21 p'suqim already from one, it would do no harm to read the
beginning and end of the other: 'al pi din, it is considered in a sense
that you have read the other as well. However, if the two haftoros are in
different n'vi'im, there is a problem, and the R'mo says we are careful
not to even if you are not reading from q'laf, and the M'habber disagrees.

I hope that helps clear up things.
A gutten shabbos,
Seth Mandel

Markowitz, Chaim:
> The Mshna Berura (in Hilchos Shabbos) says that when Purim is on Friday one
> should be makdim the seudah before chatzos. 
> How do you understand this. Does this mean one should start before chatzos
> or does it mean most of the seudah should be before chatzos.

FWIW KSA also says to be makdim...

Regardless of the subjective criteria, there is an objective component
that poskim insist on starting early. So AIUI, it means to start the
se'uda before Chatzos, and to finish it reasonably in such a way as not
to interfere with se'udas Shabbos. I would say it would depend upon the
individuals.  Young men can eat a lot of food at one meal and still eat
the next meal with gusto.  Others may not. This is quite similar to the
inyan of Shalosh Seudos that we are admonished to not over-eat at the
2nd se'udah so as to enable eating a se'udah shlishi.

Good Shabbos
Rich Wolpoe

In Avodah V6 #143, Mordechai wrote:
> ...[T]he Roqeach was [heavily involved in the 'Mesorah' area]....
For those who are interested in 'Mesorah,'
I recommend studying the Ba'al HaTurim commentary;
the elucidation and notes of Rabbi AGold
in the recent Artscroll publication are, IMHO, excellent.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

From: Gershon Dubin [mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com]
> R' Daniel Wells and I have been discussing off list why or why not a
> person could falsify information given at a web site in order 
> to access
> the site in complete privacy.
<snip>
> It occurred to me while listening to a tape of a recent shiur by Rav
> Yisrael Reisman on midas sedom (very highly recommended;  R' 
> Joel,  it's
> 44) that this might apply.  Since it costs me nothing to 
> provide the site
> to one more person one it's up,  and I derive no benefit from the
> information (the site in question says that they use it only for
> statistical tracking meaning,  AIUI,  the site owner's curiousity), 
> perhaps kegon zeh kofin al midas sedom.

Of course, if everyone used that severah, the web site owner would lose
money.  Also, I doubt it's just "curiosity"--I imagine he'll use the
information in some way to benefit financially (e.g., in figuring out what
his target audience is, etc.).

I don't think that it's an issue of kofin al midas sedom (KAMS).  IIRC, KAMS
applies when a person is not chaser when someone else is neh'he'neh.  Here,
the web site owner invests a lot up front to create a site which will yield
money to cover his expenses and hopefully make a profit.  Compare to the
issue of any intellectual property--music, software, etc.  Copying such
intellectual property does not directly damage the producer of the IP, but
it's certainly unfair to him.  From a global societal perspective, we would
want to discourage such copying, because otherwise no one will invest the
effort to produce intellectual property.  So, I would doubt this constitutes
KAMS.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

R' Shimon/Telz - as mentioned by many others, this could be taluy in the
machlokes the manos halevi and terumas hadeshen as to whether m.m. is a
din in seudah or reyus - you cannot be mekayeim seudah with han'ah alone,
you need real food.

Brisk - there are 2 dinim in mishloach manos: 1) the chovas nesina on
the gavra 2) a din in the cheftza of the mishloach manos that it be food.
M'din nesina, hana'ah would be sufficient, but hana'ah is not a cheftza
shel mishloach manos.

(This is different than R' Shimon's derech. The reason for m.m. is
unimportant - even if the sibah is reyus, one could still argue that
the cheftza shel mitzva must be ochel.)

Polisher - by kiddushin there is a din of shave kesef k'kesef, and the
han'ah constitutes a shavyus, mah sh'ain kein by m.m.

From: David Riceman [mailto:dr@insight.att.com]
>   the rashi about not singing psuking other than with their trop is
> Sanhedrin 101a s.v. "HG  hakore Shir HaShirim ..."  It's an afortiori
> argument from Shir haShirim to the rest of scripture.

It's not necessarily a kal v'chomer.  Rashi notes, "af al pi sh'mashir shir
hashirim, v'ikaro shir."  There is a particular sensitivity with regard to
Shir Hashirim--if one did not know torah she'b'al peh, one would think that
it's a love song.  Consequently, if one sings it w/o trop, it might indicate
that one believes it a secular song.  (BTW, I heard an Israeli singer sing
verses from Shir Hashirim as a kind of love song and it made my blood boil!)

Proof it's not a kal v'chomer: The next line in the braissa reads "v'hakoreh
pasuk b'vais hamishtaos b'lo zmano."  Now, if the din of "hakoreh...Shir
Hashirim v'oseh oso k'min zemer..." really applies to all Tanach, why didn't
the first line state outright "hakoreh...*pasuk* v'oseh oso k'min zemer...?"
It must be that this din applies davka to Shir Hashirim.

Caveat: I'm just looking at the gemara on my CD ROM; I haven't looked at
rishonim & achronim.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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


[ 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         ]