Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 012

Saturday, April 6 2002

• Methodology of Rema
• Re: shabbat clocks
• Parameters of an ohel
• R Yeru'ham on eggs and bassar be'halav
• RAE YD 87:4
• This ma'amid is deOraita?
• Re: taking off tfillin before hallel on chol hamoed
• re - taking off tfillin before hallel on chol hamoed
• Re: shabbat clocks
• Re: Some Pesach Yom Kippur Parallels
• Re: Hallel and Shivi Shel Pesach
• Re: Does a talmid chacham have a yetzer hora?
• Re: Reading the nesi'im
• Re: Gilgul and Reason
• Re: Freedom
• Re: Seder, Letizonus and Matzo
• Cheisheq vs Ahavah
• shir hayichud

Ordinarily, Rema (I mean rav Moshe Isserlis) differs from BY where
Ashkenazi practice has been more stringent, or, in less common instances,
more lenient than the major halakhik codifiers. Thus, Rema quotes Sha'arei
Dura, hagahot Sha'arei Dura, Maharshal (both in his Issur veHeter and in
his work on Shas), Morde'hai, Or Zaru'ah, etc. where BY quotes Rambam,
Rashbah, Rosh, Ramban, Semag, Semak, Ba'al haIttur, etc.

To a certain extent, this is the result of the fact that Rema wrote
glosses to the BY's works, which already quoted the major halakhik
codifiers. Nonetheless, I doubt that he was out to quote the forgotten
works, or the stringent. He uses words derived from the word minhag too
often to think that he was doing any less than stating minhag Ashkenaz.

In light of this, it is rather surprising that in the beginning of YD
92 he follows the opinion of Rashi (admittedly an Ashkenazi rishon)
that a chunk of meat, not fully immersed in its stock, that received a
splattering of milk, is considered in isolation of the rest of the food
in the pot, while the vast majority of poskim, including Ashkenazi ones
whom he likes to quote (he himself noted in his Darkhei Mosheh that Issur
veHetter rules like the majority), ruled like Ri (no less an Ashkenazi
than Rashi).

Why did Rema rule to be stringent in this case as there was no strong
precedence for this particular stringency?

Kol tuv,
Arie Folger

In a message dated 3/30/02 9:15:26pm EST, turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:
> I was recently asked a question about the use of a shabat clock for a
> stove....

Accoring to RHS {I heard this form him one-on-one} and Rabbi E, Kanarfogel
you may ONLY use a clock to turn OFF a stove NEVER on.

I used to have a cholent pot go off for one hour Friday evening and back
on so as to sneak a bit while the electricity was off. I was told this was
a a no-no. Once off it MUST remain off. RHS told me it is like a candle,
you can light a long burning one or a short burning one but once out it
remains out.

I'm not sure why. The kli rishon in question was still plenty hot for
a full hour,but there are apparently other issues.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Gemara Hullin 91a mentions an aggadic mishna re: immersing the parochet
in a mikveh. Tos. ad loc DH Shalosh meot kohanim, enquires as to why
the paro'het would ever need immersion, considering that:
    * it would not need any tvilah unless it really is mekabel tumah. The
    initial tevilah of klei sharet is merely done as a 'humrah, which
    is that we imagine that it did, in fact, become tameh,
    * there seems to be no reasonable way for the paro'het to have
    become tamei, yet the quoted mishna leaves the impression that the
    tvilah was a regular event (it contains no hint that it describes
    an exceptional event)

The ba'alei haTos. reject the fear that someone may have wrapped
himself in the P as a reason for regular tevilah (rather difficult feat
considering that same mishna states that P's thickness was 1 tefa'h ;-)
In fact, I believe that Tos. holds that the P would not even be mekabel
tumah based on this 'hashash, since it is impossible, even though they
merely state that we do not expect anybody to wrap himself in the P b/c
it is prohibited leho'il behekdesh. My evidence for this is that they
seem to look for a reason for P to be MT), but suggest instead that the
P functioned as an ohel, since TB Succot states that the P was folded
over at the top, joining the ceiling. I believe that TB adduces that
from vesakota al haaron et haP (Shem. 40:3).

My question is where do we find that being an ohel makes an object
mekabel tumah? An ohel allows tumah to spread under it, but that is
irelevant WRT kabalat tumah, as a me'hubar lakarka (f.e. a house) is
not mekabel tumah, even as it is maahil.

Nu, so why would the P be mekabel tumah? What did Tos. mean? Is there
another reason why the P would require regular tevilah?

Kol tuv,
Arie Folger

In YD 87:5 the Tur & BY discuss which eggs, when found inside a
slaughtered fowl, may be eaten with milk, according to which shitat
harishonim. In DH Ubeitzim he quotes rabbenu Yeru'ham (NTU 28, pg. 137)
as prefering Rashi's and the Rosh's definition of "beitzim, af 'al pi
sheeinam gemurim" (at the end of that paragraph).

However, two paragraphs down, DH VehaRan, he cites RY (NTU 22, pg. 133)
to the effect of agreeing with the opposing shitah, that of the Rashba
(although admittedly, that is not the BY's problem, as he is by then
concerned with whether such eggs need meli'hah).

Nu, what does RY hold?

Arie Folger

RAE YD 87:4; can't make head nor tails out of that se'if katan, anybody
can help?

Arie

PM in Sifsei Da'at YD 87:27 states that a keivah that was in the 'or
hakeivah while the latter was salted for a short time (avoiding the
problem of melia'h kerotea'h acc. to most authorities), even though the
former was still liquid (and thus considered being milk by Ashkenazi
authorities), may be used for cheese making. However, that cheese may
not be cooked, because "deein lehakel detu haveh deOraita".

What is possibly deOraita here? The cheese was mu'amad with safek bassar
be'halav deRabbanan, and the enzyme would really be batel umevutal many
times over if not for the rule of ma'amid, which is IIRC, rabbinic. The
subsequent boiling should not change anything since the quantity of enzyme
(keivah) is negligible and was already batel. Nu, so what's deOraita? Is
this an odd case of 'hozer vene'ar outside of hil. Pesa'h?

Note that even though there are opinions that ma'amid of cheese with meat
is not void, ever, that is irrelevant to my question because at any rate
the unvoidability of a ma'amid is deRabbanan, not deOraita. (is it?)

Arie Folger

On 2 Apr 2002 at 9:33, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> The M"B(OC 31:7) discusses this issue and use a (to me) a strange language
> - after stating the above he says (emphasis mine) "VACHSHAV NAHAGU EIZEH
> ANASHIM lsalkamn achar kedusha shel tfilat yud chet umikol makom tzrichin
> lizaher lkaven lshmoa chazarat hatfila"

> 1. Does this imply the universal practice ... prior to these "anashim"
> was to have a brief break between chazarat > hashatz and hallel( ... )?

I don't have the answers to your questions but IIRC RYBS held that those
who wear tefillin on Chol HaMoed should not remove them on Pesach until
before Musaf. The reason for the chiluk was that the tefillin would be
a chatzitza for bentching lulav and esrog, but on Pesach where there is
no such issue there is no reason to remove them before Musaf. (I could
be wrong in sourcing this to RYBS, in which case I'm sure R. Seth Mandel
will correct me. RHS does not bring this in Nefesh HaRav).

-- Carl

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> The M"B(OC 31:7) discusses this issue and use a (to me) a strange language
> - after stating the above he says (emphasis mine) "VACHSHAV NAHAGU EIZEH
> ANASHIM lsalkamn achar kedusha shel tfilat yud chet umikol makom tzrichin
> lizaher lkaven lshmoa chazarat hatfila"

The KSA [10:19] writes that on CH Sukkos all remove Tefillin before
Hallel and on CH Pesach the tzibbur before hallel and the Shatz after.

Our (Oberlender-?) minhag is that on the 1st (week)day of CH Pesach -
when they lein Kadesh Li Kol Bechor, the Tefillin are only removed
after Krias Hatorah.

Anyone else do that?

SBA

On 2 Apr 2002 at 14:02, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> Accoring to RHS {I heard this form him one-on-one} and Rabbi E, Kanarfogel
> you may ONLY use a clock to turn OFF a stove NEVER on.

> I used to have a cholent pot go off for one hour Friday evening and back
> on so as to sneak a bit while the electricity was off. I was told this was
> a a no-no. Once off it MUST remain off. RHS told me it is like a candle,
> you can light a long burning one or a short burning one but once out it
> remains out....

Why wouldn't it be an issue of shema yechateh (you might be tempted to
turn the pot back on to heat up the cholent a little more now that you
are going to eat it and there's an uncovered control)?

Also, wouldn't there be a chashash that your timing with the clock is
a bit off and you come to stir the pot while the fire is (back) on?

-- 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.

: 6) Concluding with "leshanah haba'ah biYrushalayim habenuyah".

The Brisker Rav felt strongly that "hab'nuyah" should not be said,
as quoted in the Hagadah MiBeis Levi (Brisk).

Elazar M. Teitz

Many contemporary and past Baalei Halacha have grappled with why we say
chatzi Hallel on Shivi shel Pesach. Some look at the uniform nature of
the karbanos as opposed to Sukkos or focus on the issur shirah to the
melachim because of the blood shed. Here is a different critique based
on the Yishuos Yaakov and Haggadas Siach HaGrid( RYBS on Haggadah). Think
about it:

1) Chanukah has Hallel HaShalem with no Karban and a war .

2) The Gemara in Pesachim states that the Bnei Yisrael recited Hallel
on the events of Macas Bcoros , Karban Pesach and at Yam Suf.

RYBS quoted R Yizchak Volozihner that while the Melachim could not say
Shira, the Bnei Yisrael as Baalei HaNes certainly said Hallel. While
we follow the melachim on Shivi Shel Pesach, we reenact the Exodus as
much as possible and say Hallel HaShalem in shul and at the Seder. In
essence, we recite Hallel on Leil Seder Btoras Shirah al hanes because
it helps us fullfil the Mitzvah of feeling as if we are actually leaving
Mitzrayim. Perhaps, this pshat offers a way out of the problems offered
by both the Medrash ( "massei yadav" ) and the karban rooted answer of
the Gemrar in Erichin.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

I wrote:
>Bava Basra 17a: On three the yetzer hara did not rule - Avraham, Yitzchak, 
>and Ya'akov. Some say David also.

Yosef Stern wrote:
>Note: "the yetzer hara did not *rule*". And not that they did not *have*, 
>which is our question.

Yours is the way Tosafos read the gemara. But see Rabbeinu Gershom
(on the margin) and Rashi (sv challal).

I think the ultimate proof is from Yerushalmi Berachos 9:4 (67b in the
standard edition, not the edition with four columns that everyone seems
to cite but no one seems to have):

"Avraham Avinu made his yetzer hara good as it says 'Umatzasa es levavo
ne'eman lefanecha'... but David could not withstand it and killed it in
his heart. Why [or: from where]? 'Velibi challal bekirbi.'"

Gil Student

Akiva Miller wrote:
>If it okay to to take the Torah from the aron to read the nesi'im in Nisan, 
>why is there a problem with taking it out to read Parshas Zachor for women?

The shtiebel near me leined the nesi'im from a Chumash, presumably to 
obviate this issue.

Gil Student

On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 11:02:22AM -0500, Gil Student wrote:
: I meant that the majority of those who discuss gilgul do not reject it.
: Also keep in mind that many rishonim intentionally hid this belief.

And it's quite likely that many never discuss it because it simply didn't
enter their eschotology altogether.

: Someone asked how gilgul can be logically disproven. RCC said that if a
: person's neshamah is his potential intellect, then his accomplishments are
: defined by what his intellect acquires...

One could also use this argument to disprove the medrash about prenatal
torah learning, since one does not recall bechayim what the neshamah
learned. It is also quite possible that something is known, but we lack
the ability to recall it. (The data is there, but we don't have a reference
to it from the outside.) In which case it could still influence the shape
of the self even if one isn't able to actively remember it.

This chiluq between what we know and what we actively recall was made by
RYBS to explain the formula for a siyum. "Lo sisnasei" refers to our
knowledge of the mesechta even when we aren't actively reviewing it.
How it still shapes who we are and what we do while not bringing it to
mind.

However, the Gra places the intellect as a kisharon of the ru'ach, and
the Ramchal says it's of the nefesh. Assuming that the phrase gilgul
*neshamah* means bedavka neshamah (quite plausible since gilgul and
Naran are usually discussed by the same group of people), it's not the
intellect that is resurrected.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 8th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (413) 403-9905                               Chesed for another

On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 02:19:16PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: Nevertheless, for whatever value you might find in it, I once saw an
: interesting quote (sorry I don't remember the source) which I try to
: always mention at my Seder: "Freedom is when you stop being a slave to
: what you don't like, and become a slave to what you do like."

I would define freedom as becoming a slave to that for which you were
created. Likach notzarta.

The founders of the US saw freedom in terms of the pursuit of happiness.
Simchah, as I cited from R' Saadia Gaon last summer, is the happiness that
comes from the knowledge of the underlying reality. (Related to tzechoq;
we laugh when we get a sudden shift of perspective and see the underlying
reality.)

And thus, it's not a stretch to say that "ivdu es H' besimchah" is a
plausible definition of cheirus.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 8th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (413) 403-9905                               Chesed for another

On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 06:31:46AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: Fundamentally, of course, our Emunah is based on the Exodus: "Onochi
: Hashem Elokecho ahser hotzeitzicho mei'eretz Mitzrayim mi'beis
: avodim." ...

Which gets us back to my comment on semichas ge'ulah letefillah, and
why birechas ge'ulah so prominantly features yetzi'as mitzrayim.

-mi

Please look at Devarim 7:7,8:
    Lo meirovchem chashaq H' bachem vayivchar bachem
    ki atem hame'at mikol ha'amim.
    Ki mei'ahavas H' eschem,
    umishomro es hasheva'...

It seems to be saying that cheisheq is conditional or merited ahavah,
whereas ahavah with no adjective is ahavas chinam. (A phrase which I
have been seeing increasingly often in the past decade. I think was
coined by RAYKook.)

Speaking of which....

At Yam Suf, Rashi notes the use of lashon yachid for the Mitzriyim by
commenting "beleiv echad ke'ish echad". However, the famous Rashi at
Har Sinai describes the unity of BY as "ke'ish echad beleiv echad".

Efshar lomar that this is the difference. The Mitzriyim had no inherent
unity. They had a single leiv, a single desire and goal, and they unified
behind that goal. Had they lived long enough for that goal to evaporate
they would have once again been divided.

Matan Torah, however, required achdus as a precondition. "Lefi shehotzi
es atzmo min haklal, kafar be'ikar." The "ish echad" preceeds the "leiv
echad", the common mission.

Perhaps this is why talmidei R' Aqiva bedavka died in this period,
between beleiv echad ke'ish echad and ke'ish echad beleiv echad.
The achdus they had, but only the achdus of common purpose. A utilitarian
unity is not the basis of respect, it's unity so as to use the other.
(In this case, as a tool for one's own learning.)

Therefore, they didn't survive the transition from Pesach to Shavu'os.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 8th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (413) 403-9905                               Chesed for another

Does anyone say it daily these days?

All I recall seeing over the years is people saying it (the segments for
all the various days of the week - eg. yom sheini, shelishi, etc.) on
Yom Kippur night.

Anyone see any other type of recitations of it?

Mordechai

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


[ 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         ]