Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 037

Tuesday, July 1 2003

• Re: 'nun hafucha'
• Re: 'nun hafucho'
• Nigunim in Shul
• Re: Tzora'as Miryam; ketores
• Re: Tzora'as Miryam; ktores
• Re : Flood
• Re: Flood
• Salting the HaMotzi
• Re: Salting the HaMotzi
• Re: Salting the HaMotzi
• RE: Giving your wife Challah first
• Re: Salting the HaMotzi
• quietism: was existential angst
• Re: existential angst
• Re: existential angst
• Re: existential angst
• Re: existential angst
• Re: existential angst
• Bartenura re Lag B'Omer
• tzedakah
• Re: tzedakah
• RE: tzedakah
• Re: tzedakah
• Re: tzedakah
• Re: tzedakah
• Re: tzedakah
• tzadaka

On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 03:49:36PM +0000, simchag@att.net wrote:
: you are right....'hafucha' CAN mean 'backwards'....BUT it seems that
: when the word 'hafuch' is used in 'Chumish' or in Chazal it is usually
: to denote upsidedown..

I think it most often means to change, as in the leapard's spots or
the appearance of a nega. This is also the shoresh's source meaning,
according to BDB's comparison to Aramaic, Arabic and Assyrian.

The notion of upside-down or backward derives from that primary meaning.

It also means to spin, as in the cherev hamishapeshes (Ber 3:24).

And medaber tahafukhos (Mish 2:12) is speaking lies.

An Aristotilian spin (pun intended, although I probably shouldn't admit
it) would be to say /hpk/ means change because it is to emerge min
hako'ach el hapo'al. This would relate it in a Hirschian sense to /npk/,
to breath in.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

R' SBA had an aliya and so discovered a mirror image nun rather than an
upside down one as he had assumed from the word hafucho.

Those who use the more elegant term "simaniyot" or "nunim m'nuzarot"
do not get that wrong impression, - that is, unless they notice the nuns
printed in run-of-the-mill chumashim

R'YZirkind noted, from Keset Sofer, that there are at least two shitot.

There are two main shitot plus a number of less popular ones. The most
common version has only the foot of the nun reversed. Others reversed the
head as well. In k'tav Bet Yosef, the head is in the shape of a zayyin
so, forward or back is almost the same thing. K'tav Ar"i and the sefardic
"Welish" have the heads facing only one side so the reversal can easily
be seen, - if they are reversed. There is a shita with dots placed above
the two nuns. There are also different opinions on the spacing of the
nuns, i.e., their positions in the open areas (stuma and p'tucha). There
is also a shita with no extra nuns at all in the gaps but with the nun
of binsoa' and one nun of mit'on'nim m'nuzarot instead.

Minchat Shai has much to say on the nuns and gives a list of sources.
He says his long entry is only a summary of the Ohr Torah who is very
much longer. So, anyone with the urge can investigate the subject further.

The reason that most printed chumashim show upside-down nuns is that,
in the pre-computer age, the type was formed by pouring lead into
molds or matrices and the printer did not have a mold or matrix for a
mirror-image nun. So, the easy solution, for monotype (single letters)
was to turn the molded nun upside down. For linotype (one piece of lead
for a line) he turned the nun matrix upside down when molding the line.
In the printed page, he then had the head and foot facing to the right
with the longer foot on top and shorter head on bottom.

Only a Yekke m'dakdek like Heidenheim would bother to have a special
mold made so he could print the head in the normal direction and the
foot reversed - or show a complete mirror image with the shorter head
on top and longer foot at the bottom.

BTW, there are a bunch of nunim m'nuzarot floating around somewhere
in T'hilim.

k"t,
David

Would anyone know at what time in history our nusach was put to the
nigunim that we hear today in Shul? Who composed them? I once read in
(In R'JD Eisenstein's Otzar Dinim) that the Maharal was a great Bal
Menagain and composed much of our current nusach.

Also, there seem to be different minhagim regarding which parts of the
tefilos are sung and which are not. The Young Israel type shul will sing
Vayehi Binsoa, etc. (My impression is that this was instituted as a form
of kiruv, like an early form of the "Carlebach Minyan" - See "Fire in
His Soul" or "Lieutenant Birnbaum" - I forgot which), while the more
yeshivish shul will not. Some Yeshivos won't sing anything (I think I
witnessed this in a Navhardok Yeshiva), not even Lecha Dodi, and some
won't sing Kail Adon. The Chasidim will sing both of these, plus some
other parts ...various minhagim. KAJ also does a lot of singing (with
some magnificent compositions). Is there any problem with instituting
singing new parts of the tefillos that have not been sung? Is it simply
an issue of Mesora, or is there a more specific hisnagdus?

Regards,
Mordechai Dixler

On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 09:07:04AM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: <<The Ramban writes ...
: ....It is also often cited that Beha'alosekha is a remez to Chanukah>>

: All very nice, but not what I asked.  I asked what the explanation is
: al pi machashava for the ketores and neiros always going together,
: including a hekesh in a recent daf yomi.

Sorry, I stopped one step short.

In general, ketores is kenegged machshavah, whereas the menorah is properly
directed machshavah.

-mi

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 09:05:32AM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
:> Aharon asked Moshe Rabbenu to heal Miryam, because otherwise he, Aharon,
:> as a karov, could not be metaher her. But how did she become tamei in
:> the first place? And if she could become tamei because bemetzius she
:> had tzora'as, then kol umas shebah ken yelech? I'm confused.

: The Talmud (could be a midrash) states that God acted as Kohen.

Pity it doesn't fit the lashon of the gemara ("... osah sha'ah Ani
kohein...") but my instinctive reaction was that this was a ra'ayah that
a kohein is a shali'ach laMaqom. This would mean that the ko'ach letaheir
is kept by HQBH and therefore His shelichim. Which would explain why H'
Himself can metaheir tzora'as.

If the ko'ach of tzora'as were given to man, then this would be as
questionable as following R' Elazar on tanur shel achna'i.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

>Explain why there are no nissim bizman hazeh. Whatever answer(s) you
>accept for that one is likely to also include why there can't be
>evidence of historical nissim.

Fine, but whatever the reason for hiding historical nissim might be,
there is still the problem that the act of hiding evidence of the flood
seems, in effect, like a greater miracle than the flood itself. If so,
then why does the Torah devote a large amount of text to the flood,
and little (or not at all) to the fact of hiding evidence of it?

>PS: You have a 2 for 2 on asking questions we've debated here at length.
>Again, I suggest checking the archive.

   Well, I did look at the archives and could not find a satisfactory
answer to my question. I mentioned this at the top of my original post.

On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 12:32:08AM -0400, Leonid Portnoy wrote:
: Fine, but whatever the reason for hiding historical nissim might be,
: there is still the problem that the act of hiding evidence of the flood
: seems, in effect, like a greater miracle than the flood itself. If so,
: then why does the Torah devote a large amount of text to the flood,
: and little (or not at all) to the fact of hiding evidence of it?

Actually, the Torah does. The olive tree that was still alive despite the
mass of water, lack of air and light, what should have been HUGE erosion,
etc...

And according to RSRH, the seemless human record was part of the hapelaga.
Therefore, leshitaso, it's discussed at length.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
> In that thread, I wrote how my practice is to say HaMotzi, slice enough
> for the whole table, salt the slices, take one for myself and pass out
> the others. But as a result of other views presented there, this past
> Erev Shabbos I considered perhaps switching. Perhaps on Shabbos I would
> take the first slice myself, and *then* slice for the rest of the table.
> I began to mentally rehearse the various steps, when I stopped and asked
> myself, "When do I do the salt?"

Just wish to point out Minhag Chasam Sofer z'l and many Oberlender
[Yekkes?]that on Friday night the challah is not dipped into salt.

SBA

On 29 Jun 2003 at 13:50, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> The MB 167:33 does says that the Mekubalim say to dip the slice of
> hamotzi into the salt 3 times. I'm still confused. Everyone I know
> does salt the bread between the bracha and the eating, but no one does
> it three times. What are we basing ourselves on?

I can tell you what I do, although I cannot really give you a source.
I suspect that what I do is a corruption of MB 167:33.

I do remember being taught that one should dip the Challah into salt
rather than pouring salt on the Challah. I have a small salt cup and a
tiny spoon, and before I make the bracha, I spoon a bit of salt onto the
Challah plate (it was a board until two weeks ago when someone bought
us a fancy plate as a gift :-). After the bracha, and after I cut my own
piece, I dip my piece in the salt (but only once) and then eat it. Then
(while eating my own piece), I dip my wife's piece in the salt and leave
it on the Challah tray for her. Then as I cut each group of pieces,
I dip them in the salt, put them on the Challah tray and pass them out.

The only variation on this is Pesach, when dipping the Matza into the
salt is ineffective. Then I sprinkle salt on the Matzah.

-- Carl

R' Carl Sherer wrote <<< I do remember being taught that one should dip
the Challah into salt rather than pouring salt on the Challah. >>>

I neglected to mention that I deliberately chose the phrase "salting
the challah" in order to avoid this differentiation. Regardless of how
one does it, the salting seems to be an interruption between the HaMotzi
and the eating, and that's what I wanted to focus on.

But given that I did neglect to mention it, and R' Carl has brought it
up, we may as well use this thread to discuss both issues.

I once looked into this question and concluded that it was based on
confusion over the meaning -- and spelling -- of the word "tovel". People
who hear it presume that it is spelled with a tes, meaning "to dip". But
if one looks at the text, he finds it is spelled with a tav, meaning
"to flavor". Based on that, I have been salting my challah to flavor it
in the most convenient manner, which is by pouring from the saltshaker
onto the challah.

But now that I reviewed this section again, I think I should make a
different distinction: There are two different "tovel"s used in this
section of Shulchan Aruch. The tovel which the Mechaber says *not* to
do today -- that is the one with the tav; our bread is already flavored
and does not need additional salt. But the tovel which is recommended by
the Mekubalim -- that one has the tes, This teaches us that one should
either follow the Mechaber and not salt his bread at all, or follow the
Mekubalim and davka dip the bread into the salt (as R' Carl wrote).

Another point: I had written that we seem to follow neither the Shulchan
Aruch (who says not to salt the bread, yet we all do so), nor the
Mekubalim (who say to dip the bread in salt 3 times (MB 167:33), yet we
do it only once). However, please note that the Aruch HaShluchan 167:12
also wrote that the Mekubalim say to dip the bread in salt, "and that's
how every Y'rei Elokim acts" -- but he does not mention that it be done
three times. I find it very interesting that in this (apparent) division
between our Textual Tradition and our Mimetic Tradition, the AHS seems
to have a better description of what people actually do than the MB does.

Akiva Miller

<<<IRC someone here asked that if we are supposed to feed our animals
before ourselves, isn't it a kal vechomer that we do so for our wife?
I saw quoted beshem sefer Taharas Hashulchon - that ein hochi nameh
(though he was not referring to the motzi challah).>>>

And one way to do this is by waiting to begin eating until the wife
finishes serving the meal and returns from the kitchen to her place at
the table. If there are a lot of guests and dishes to be served and
people begin eating as the food comes out, it is not unusual for everyone
to be finished by the time the wife sits down.

KT
Aryeh

It can be done very simply. Cut off a chunk of challah that you think
will suffice for everyone. Then cut this chunk into several slices and
keep the last one for yourself. That way all of the cutting was for
your one slice. Salt all the slices at one time (as you cut them you
let them fall onto a plate together), take yours and stick it in your
mouth, and pass the rest around. It's hard to describe but there is
very little waiting time involved and you end up eating your slice as
soon as it is ready.

Gil Student

I think Rebbitzin Friedenberg and I are almost in agreement.  Nonetheless I
would like to make three points about
1. quietism
2. tzniuth
3. study of Kabbalah.

1. There's a machlokes haposkim about whether asking God for things one
needs is the mitzvah of Tfillah l'chatchilla (as in H. Tefillah 1:4),
or whether it's an unfortunate b'dieved, and the l'chatchila is praying
for tzaros haShechina (as in Ruah Hayyim 3:2). I speculate (and it's an
argument by analogy so it's not conclusive) that R Hayyim's adherents
would consider any distress about one's personal situation to be a
flaw in character which disqualifies the person from studying kabbalah,
whereas the Rambam's adherents would not.

2. I didn't make fully clear in my previous post that there's a
distinction between the two disqualifications I mentioned there. In #1
(angst when studying kabbalah) it's a problem in tznius, in #2 (angst when
studying anything) it's a problem in distraction. While in God's inner
chamber, as it were, i.e., while studying Kabbalah, any concentration
on one's personal problems, is inappropriate intimacy and hence a lack
of tznius (you will notice that I am assuming we follow the Rambam and
not R Haim above).

3. In these decadent times when Kabbalistical works are often quoted
in public it's sometimes hard to tell when one is or isn't studying
Kabbalah. A friend once told me an enlightening story. I believe the
main character was the Mezeritcher Magid, though it may have been the
author of the Tanya. I will assume the former, and, no doubt, someone
on the list will correct me and fill in the details.

The MM once rebuked a local rabbi for explaining kabbalah in public.
The local rabbi objected that the MM did the same thing. The MM responded
in the contrary. "I," he said, "use meshalim from Kabbalistical books
to explain how people behave in the here and now. You, on the contrary,
speculate on how God behaves."

I think that's an enlightening distinction. If someone cites a Zohar to
deduce some mussar, that's not the study of Kabbalah. If someone cites
a Zohar to explain qualifications for getting into heaven which are out
of our hands, that is.

David Riceman

I wrote:
>Is the reason to do mitzvos so that we can get into olam ha-ba?

Harry wrote:
>No. But if one is destined to be precluded, no matter
>how many Mitzvos, no matter how deserving, why not
>just go to Macdonald's and have a cheeseburger (amongst
>other things)?  What's the worst that can happen to you?
>Ay least you will be able to enjoy Olam HaZeh.

My point was that, at least ideally, we should do mitzvos even if there
were no olam ha-ba. Whether out of hakaras ha-tov or simply a desire for
kirvas Elokim, we are supposed to do mitzvos she-lo al menas lekabel peras
(or: al menas she-lo lekabel peras).

What is the difference between doing mitzvos not-for-a-reward and doing
mitzvos knowing that there will be no reward? Shouldn't be any, although
I understand that most of us don't reach the ideal.

Gil Student

Gil Student <gil@aishdas.org> wrote:
> My point was that, at least ideally, we should do mitzvos even if
> there were no olam ha-ba. Whether out of hakaras ha-tov or simply a
> desire for kirvas Elokim, we are supposed to do mitzvos she-lo al
> menas lekabel peras (or: al menas she-lo lekabel peras).
> 
> What is the difference between doing mitzvos not-for-a-reward and
> doing mitzvos knowing that there will be no reward?  Shouldn't be any,
> although I understand that most of us don't reach the ideal.

I wonder if it is even humanly possible to reach that ideal. Of course it
is better to do the Mitzvos becuase this is what God wants of us. Reward
or punishment should not be the primary motivator. The fact is that
there is a punishment/reward system. It cannot be separated out of human
thinking. It is therefore impossible IMHO to know if anyone would follow
the dictates of God if He did not punish or reward you for it.

Is there any religion that does not reward or punish in any way,
whether on earth or in a heaven, where people still follow difficult
rules because it is mandated by a Deity who won't do anything about
compliance one way or another?

I think that what Chazal may have meant by "al menas she-lo lekabel
peras" is that knowing that there IS... a reward/punishment system,
one should strive to do it out of love of God rather than reward. IOW
reward should be secondary. However, without any reward or punishment
at all it would seem that God wouldn't really care what we do.

HM

Let me put it to you this way. How many ba'alei teshuvah become frum
out of fear of punishment and how many out of the desire to do mitzvos?
I believe the latter is the main reason and is how we all should act.

Gil Student

Gil Student <gil@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Let me put it to you this way.  How many ba'alei teshuvah become frum
> out of fear of punishment and how many out of the desire to do
> mitzvos?  I believe the latter is the main reason and is how we all
> should act.

I agree that Baalei Teshuva are not initially motivated by a fear of
punishment. But neither are they necessarily motivated by a desire
to do Mitzvos... at least not at first. Often their trek to Mitzvah
observance starts out as a search for truth... or a desire to live
a moral life... or a need to escape a horrible life style. Sometimes
they simply fall in love with the Jewish lifestyle focusing more on the
perriferals rather than the essence. For example they may just like the
concept of the cohesiveness of an Orthodox family or the beauty of a
Shabbos meal. Sometimes it is a sympathetic ear of a Rav or an Orthodox
school friend or an NCSY advisor. In short there are many reasons why
some one would become Frum or convert.

But once there... once there has been some education about Mitzvah
observance and about Jewish philosophy then your question becomes more
legitmate.

But in the final analysis, I agree with you as I said before. It is a
higher form of Mitzvah observance to do Mitzvos because of the love of
God, then to do it becaue of the fear of punishment or gain of reward. But
I still question whether mitzvah observance with all of its attendant
hardship is likely without ANY concept of reward or punishment in the
background.

If observing Mitzvos or lack thereof is totally without consequence to
your exitential self... even though you are doing God's will because
"it is the right thing to do"... don't you think that at least once in a
while one could sort of slack off, have a cheeseburger, and then return
to doing Mitzvos?

Who loses?

HM

On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 05:17:08PM -0400, Gil Student wrote:
: Let me put it to you this way. How many ba'alei teshuvah become frum
: out of fear of punishment and how many out of the desire to do mitzvos?
: I believe the latter is the main reason and is how we all should act.

It's more complicated than that when you take a rationalist or Qabbalistic
approach. Both assume a causal connection: act causes change in person
(in rationalist, including many Kabbalistic positions), which in turn
causes sechar.

By making it a causal chain, you not only deny sechar for any other
mitzvos. You are implying that the mitzvah does not serve its effect.
Even without "al menas laqabeil peras", the lack of sechar can only
happen when the act it futile!

Fortunately, we have yet to see any case where someone who is still
alive is denied a cheileq le'olam hava no matter what. No source that
someone can face this fate without choice or hope of teshuvah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Some may remember our Reb Seth disputing the fact (published in the Lag
B'Omer addition to sefer Taamei Haminhogim)that the Bartenura described
Lag B'Omer celebrations in Meron.

In this weeks issue of "Alim Litrufo" - an international weekly Torah
sheet published by Belz in Antwerp - there is a letter saying the
same thing [in response to an earlier edition similarly misquoting
the Bartenura] and saying that the Bartenuro was actually reporting
celebrations at the kever of Shmuel Hanovi - quoting the sefer Darkei
Zion.

(Not that Reb Seth is in need of any Tanna demesayeh...)

SBA

[Thread bounced from Areivim. -mi]

> Charity is not redistribution. Charity is... charity. This is given
> voluntarily by an INDIVIDUAL, not society.

I am not sure where you get this idea from. In the days of chazal and
through vaad arba arazot tzedaka was the job of the kehilla, setting up
kitchens, etc.

Eli Turkel

Eli  Turkel <turkel@nianet.org> wrote:
> I am not sure where you get this idea from. In the days of
> chazal and through vaad arba arazot tzedaka was the job of
> the kehilla, setting up kitchens, etc.

Maybe so, but I'll bet you the donations supporting it were
voluntary. You're not saying people were taxed by their Kehilos are
you?

HM

> Maybe so, but I'll bet you the donations supporting it were
> voluntary. You're not saying people were taxed by their Kehilos are
> you?

AIUI, Yes.

Akiva

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote [on Areivim]:
> The kehillah taxed 10%. It's probable that this is the origin of "ma'aser
> kesafim", as opposed to the concept being founded on din.

> And the gaba'ei tzedakah in EY in the days of Chazal had power to force
> "donations" as well.

I must have some how missed your posts on the subject. But I don't see
how Chazal had the power to force donations. "Donations" by definition
is a voluntary act. Aside from that, how can anyone force anyone else
to give Tzedaka? I understand trhe concept of Hefker Bais Din Hefker
but I can't believe that it was applied to tzedakah. I do not recall
the Gemmarah ever mentioning this phenomenon, but that doesn't mean it
doesn't. Do you remeber of know the source?

HM

On 30 Jun 2003 at 15:10, Harry Maryles wrote:
>                                                   .... But I don't see
> how Chazal had the power to force donations. "Donations" by definition
> is a voluntary act. Aside from that, how can anyone force anyone else
> to give Tzedaka? ...

The Shiva Tuvei Ha'Ir in Meseches Megillah. 

-- 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. 

> But I don't
> see how Chazal had the power to force donations. "Donations" by
> definition is a voluntary act. Aside from that, how can anyone force
> anyone else to give Tzedaka? I understand trhe concept of Hefker Bais
> Din Hefker but I can't believe that it was applied to tzedakah. 

        Bava Basra 8b: "M'mashk'nin al hatz'dakah." YD 248:1: "Umi
shenosein pachos mimah shera'uy litein, beis din hayu kofin oso umakin
oso makas mardus ad sheyitein mah she'amduhu litein v'yor'din linchasav
b'fanav v'lok'chin mimenu mah shera'uy lo litein."

        Tz'dakah does _not_ mean donation; that's n'davah. Nor is
tz'dakah the Torah word for charity to the needy. The Torah commands
us to give dei machsoro asher yechsar lo, and as with any mitzvas aseh,
Beis Din has the authority to compel its observance.

EMT

Elazar M Teitz <remt@juno.com> wrote:
>         Bava Basra 8b: "M'mashk'nin al hatz'dakah."  YD 248:1: "Umi
> shenosein pachos mimah shera'uy litein, beis din hayu kofin oso umakin
> oso makas mardus ad sheyitein mah she'amduhu litein v'yor'din linchasav
> b'fanav v'lok'chin mimenu mah shera'uy lo litein."

>         Tz'dakah does _not_ mean donation; that's n'davah.   Nor is
> tz'dakah the Torah word for charity to the needy.  The Torah commands us
> to give dei machsoro asher yechsar lo, and as with any mitzvas aseh, Beis
> Din has the authority to compel its observance.

Yes. I know that Tz'dakah does not mean donation. I was quoting from
another poster's use of that word for Tzedaka.

The quote from the Gemmarah seems non specific. All it says is that
Beis din can enforce that which one fittingly is due to give. And as
you indicate, Beis Din can force compliance with ANY Halacaha, so, from
whatI can see, there is no Rayah that Beis Din can focibly "tax" Klal
Israel in the sense that a government can. If the Chiuv is of Maasar
Ksafim is 10% than all Beis Din can do is enforce that. They can not
impose an additional 5%.

Or am I missing something?

HM

Communities have the right to impose taxes - takanat hakahall obviously
based on a majority vote against the will of those who don't like it. It
practice this is done by the 7 tovei ha-ir and is not put to a general
plebiscite.

The geamara already discusses how long one has to live in the city
before one is required to pay for the Tamchui and other Tzedakot for
the poor. This was always considered to be one of the community jobs in
addition to schools etc.

Just to make clear to the best of my knowledge everyone in Israel agrees
that it is the duty of the state to provide a minimum saftey net. The
government has acknowledged that requirement. The arguement is more
about details (yes very important) rather than denying the principle.

Eli Turkel

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


[ 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         ]