Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 043

Friday, July 25 2003

• changing Hebrew
• Almond Growing
• Dvai Hasseir
• Re: The Culture Wars: Jews Among the Nations
• Re:Mentioning name of person needing kavanah
• Blood & temple floor
• blood on the Temple floor
• hard cheese
• Ashrei
• Dvai Hasseir
• Re: Melo Kol Ha'aretz Kevodo
• Gilgul accord the Gro
• Re: Mishebeirachs: mentioning name of person needing Refuah
• Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai
• 2 questions
• Re: Dvai Hasseir
• Re: Mishebeirachs: mentioning name of person needing Refuah
• Birthday Candles (was: 2 questions)
• Pesuqim durin Qaddish (was: 2 questions)
• [Fwd: Research Question]

From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
<<In megilat Esther Rov means many not most (Rov Banav)>>

And what does it mean in Chumash, as in "kechochavei hashamayim larov"?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

 From a friend:

r. schachter has a piece in nefesh harav based on a rashi at the beginning
of yirmiyahu, which is based on a medrash, or maybe a yerushalmi that
it takes 21 days for an almonds to grow and hence yirmiyahu's nevuah of
the makel shaked was in fact an allusion to the 3 weeks.

problem: i looked at a few different "almond growers" sites on the web
and they all describe a growth process that takes like 6-7 months! i
can accept that chazal got some science wrong, but 3 weeks to 6 months
is a huge discrepancy! not to mention that it's clear from the chumash
itself that the almond was a symbol of quickness, and frankly 6 months
doesn't sound so terribly quick to me!

any thoughts?

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
<<Anyone know how and why Devai Haseir, which has to do with removing
tragedy, got associated with weddings?>>

More a problem than "od yishama"? "sos tasis vesagel ha'akara"?

Anyway, it had to fit the acrostic <g>.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> I know of Kol Yisroel Areivim zeh lozeh, but where is our responsibility
> to non Jew from?

I don't know the context but as mentioned many times, see Rambam
Hil. Mlochim 8:10 and the Tos. Y"T on the Mishan in Avos Choviv Odom.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Let me offer this hearah Lzecer Nishmas Yocheved Pesha Bas Hillel UMiryam,
Zicronam Livracha , an Isha Chashuvah uTzunah who fought her machalah,
a deadly killer( i.e. see lashon of "machala neemana" in Nishmas),
with a simchas hachaim and emunah pshutah . She was a mussar haskel
for her family and friends in dealing with an es tzara that no one
should want to confront in their lfetime. She was a wonderful daughter,
spouse , mother, sister in law, aunt, grandmother and friend. The Gemara
tells us that Hillel obligated the poor to learn and Rabbeinu HaKadosh
obligated the rich to learn . Perhaps, Rachel obligates all women to
support and encourage their husbands to learn as well to their fullest
extent. The Nifteres encouraged her husband and their children to reach
their maximim potential as Jews and to make Limud HaTorah the defining
factor in their lives in many, many ways . Yehi Zicra Baruch. May this
family, a Mispacha Hameychas BYisrael and in KGH know no more Tzar and
HaMakom Ynachem Eschem Bsoch Shaar Cholei Yerushalyim.

Perhaps, the name of the person is mentioned for a purpose other than
the refuah of the choleh. IOW, let's assume that the Mi Shebarach or the
Bakasha in Shemoneh Esreh is being offered for a person who the doctors
have. Lo Aleinu, literally told either the choleh and or his her family
that there is no chance of recovery, etc. If the person is terminally ill
and has practically no chance of a refuah shelemah except by a nes ,then
the tefila is being offered so that the choleh and his/her family should
not suffer , regardless of whether the choleh is being offered aggressive
care or palliative care. IIRC, there is a Gemara where one of the Tanaim
( R Yehudah HaNasi) asked his family to pray Bshas Misah In addition,
there is the well knwown request of R Chananyah Ben Teradyon immediately
before he was executed by the Romans , Yimach Shamam VZicram. IIRC,
RSZA also discusses this issue somewhere in Minchas Shlomoh.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

The mishnah in psachim 64a states that on this day the kohanim plugged
up the drain duct which normally allowed animal blood spilled in the
altar area of the Beit Hamikdash courtyard to flow outside. I am not
sure which openings you speak of. It seems to me that the chatzeir was
enclosed on all sides except for an Eastern gate, which was able to be
closed (for example, during ne'ila). There was also a hole in the wall
of the chatzeir which was usually open. On erev pesach, as stated above,
this hole was plugged. Just out of curiousity, how do we know that the
eastern section was lower?

As for the second part of the question:

If they walked in the blood while wearing their sacred priestly garments
they would have stained those garments and rendered them unfit for the
sacrificial service as we earlier learned (18b). If they lifted their
robes till over their knees this service would be disqualified since the
Torah insisted that the kohen's garment must be "to his measurement"
(Vayikra 6:3), not longer nor shorter. The Sages solve the problem by
limiting the wading of the kohanim in blood with raised robes to their
carrying of wood to fuel the altar, a function which is not considered a
sacred service requiring the precise wearing of priestly garments. When
they were involved, however, in functions that did not require such
wearing of garments they walked along a ledge raised above the level of
the blood-filled floor. (ohr sameach)

-Yair 

Micha writes
> I would come to the same conclusion I presume RET is hinting at... the
> art of guzma didn't end with the nevi'im. There was some dam, the
> discussion of chatzitzah could be literal.

I would welcome a pshat that says the gemara is aggadic. However, the
gemara implies that the height of the blood in the Temple on erev Pesach
is the machloket tanaim. So if it is a guzma than there is no machloket!
Are there achronim that say it is a guzma?
On the other side I saw in Meorot hadaf a persuh that lambs in those
days were the size of our cows (this was with respect to semicha).
Though they bring a medrash to that effect I would certainly accept that
as a guzmah.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

Regarding hard cheeses:

Rav Ze'ev Whiteman, Rav of Tenuva, discusses which cheeses are considered
hard cheeses, at http://www.kashrut-tnuva.co.il/docs/kasha.doc. Also, Rav
Forst, in his original hilchot kashrut book, in Hebrew (pische halacha),
which btw may be more useful, for some, than his larger artscroll, as it
is clear, concise, and covers more topics, has a teshuva of Rav Moshe
Stern (pg 150), who is lenient regarding almost all cheese in America,
except of those hard imported Swiss cheeses.

Just a reminder, waiting after hard cheese is a chumra recommended by
the Rema (Y"D 89:2), originating from the Maharam of Rotenburg, who once
found cheese between his teeth. I summarize the issue in an upcoming
VBM kashrut series shiur for those who are interested.

Kol Tuv,
David Brofsky
Alon Shvut

Note in Tehilla l'David Aromimcha etc. the interplay between Dovid
HaMelech's use of first person and third person (such as "u'gevurosecha
yagidu: - I have wanted to post on this for some time, but haven't found
the time - so I'm posting for now the he'oroh and IY"H shall get around
eventually to posting my mahalach!

YGB

Al regel ahat-
First, someone (cant remember off hand who or where I read it) found in
mss that the song was originally much longer than the 2-3 lines we know
and that it was actually -- believe it or not -- a zemer for shabbat
(not associated with birkat hamazon).

Your question, though, still stands: in the form that it has come down to
us, why was it associated with weddings and not funerals etc? Well, R.
Neriyah Gotel some years ago wrote a 2 part article on Devai Haser in
*Or HaMizrah*. He shows, among other things, that Dunash had the theme
of destruction and building again (of BhM) in many of his songs and
that devai and haron are only from the first line, the other lines deal
with building.
Hence, the theme of binyan bayit ne'eman.
Yisrael Dubitsky

[From a discussion in vol. 10 nos. 85-88]

Allan Nadler, in his "Faith of the Mithnagdim" (ch. 1), argues that
the Gra essentially agreed with the Ba'al HaTanya about tzimtzum but
disagreed with the dissemination of the idea to the masses. He makes
an interesting case, although I don't know enough about the issue to
know how convincing it is.

Gil Student

[Mi:]
> Not how I understood him at all, based on his comments on Yonah and on
> his invaluable Peirush al Qama Aggados....
> The nefesh dies, the ru'ach goes to olam ha'emes, and the neshamah may
> go to olam ha'emes as well, or be nisgalgeil if needed.

Leshitaso, the nefesh is beheimis, and the ru'ach is where bechirah,
machshavah, etc... reside.

So, as I understood him, leshitaso, preferences that are not the effects
of living in a mammal's brain do survive eternally (which probably
excludes tastes in food), despite the fact that they are not nisgalgelim.

I quote form the English translation of commentary to Yonah 1,6 by
R. M. Schapiro, ArtScroll: Not only physical limbs face eternal death. The
same fate awaits the lower components of the man's spiritual being -
the bestial aspect of his nefesh and ruaach ("haguf vkol hashaikhiim
aleah - nefesh vruach habeheimos". While R. MB translation is possible,
it is not the simplest nor clearest way to learn, this in my opinion. The
Otzar Acaris Hayomim and R. M. Schapiro understood it the same way as
I did and so it seems from other writngs of the Gro as above.

Again, the Ari seems to hold differently.Again, this explanaton of the
Gro also explains their machlokes regarding which body of which gilgul
comes up in techias hameisim. For the Gro, only the last for it is
the only one with a full surviving nefesh and ruach. The Ari says -all
bodies. Please see the previous post for details.

M. L.

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> Obviously HQBH doesn't need the name to know who you're asking for.
> Rather, it's an aid for kavanah. In addition, bothering to get that name
> is itself a chessed, whose zechuyos work toward the favor.

SA OC 119:1 - The Mogen Avrohom, the MB as well as the Be'er Heitev
[b'shem Maharil] bring the gemoro in Brochos 34a - that if one is
mispallel for his chaver he need not mention his name.

However, that is only 'befonov' [as was the case when Moshe Rabbenu said
"Keil no refo no lo' in the presence of Miriam], however 'shelo befonov'
the name must be mentioned.

Another difference between 'befonov' and 'sheloy befonov' is that befonov
one can pray in any language - not so 'sheloy befonov' - when it must
be only in Loshon Hakodesh [YD 335]

And regarding our discussion about time taken up by 'Misheberach's
Lecholim', according to the Shach [YD 335:10:10] - one should NOT make
these MBs on Shabbos and YT.
See the Nosei Keilim OC 288 - who allow it - but ONLY in case of a
'choleh mesuken' and not otherwise. [The MB there seems to contradict
itself.]

And a nice pshat from the Chasam Sofer z'l [TM Toldos, p.93] on
Vaye'etarYitzchok leNochach Ishtoy.

The CS asks why is it necessary to tell us that he was mispalell
"lenochach ishtoy"?

He answers - that the Torah has just told us the yichus of Rivko [bas
Besuel Ho'arami and that family of reshoim]. Citing the above Mogen
Avrohom [that when not in the presence of the choleh one must state
the name], Yitzchok was afraid that any mention of Rivko's parentage -
rather than help, would be a kitrug and not be beneficial to his request.

Therefore he davvened "lenochach ishtoy" - eliminating the need to
mention any names.

VPChCh.

SBA

[RJR:]
> Halacha Mosheh misinai 
> The gemora(BB 12.) in the inyan of chacham adif mnavi 
> discusses nvuah by a chacham and proves its existence 
> from the fact that a Talmid Chacham could be mcaaven with
> a raeson to a halacha moshe misinai. 

> My understanding was that the hm"m could not be derived
> by logic or else why would hkb"h tell it to MRA"H as a 
> msora(eg see sukkah 28.) 

[RGS:]
>> I do not think that this is correct. Rather, it is a 
>> matter of Maimonidean terminology. According to the
>> Rambam's hakdamah to PhM, there are a number of types of 
>> Halachah Le-Moshe Mi-Sinai that are not called such. For 
>> example, a halachah that we know from mesorah but can 
>> also darshen it from a passuk would not technically be 
>> called, in Rambam's terminology, HLMM, even though it is 
>> an halachah that we know as a mesorah from Sinai. 

>> Similarly, an halachah that we can deduce via the 13 
>> midos is not technically an HLMM even though we actually 
>> know the halachah because it is a mesorah from Sinai....

It seems to me that Gil is somewhat correct. There is a difference
between halachos received by Moshe, but it is not just Maimonidean
terminology. The Rambam is explaining when the exact term "halacha
l'moshe misinai" is used in the Mishna and Gemara, and why so sparingly,
if there are in fact so many more halachos that were received by Moshe.

The Rambam explains (hakdama to mishna):
1) There are halachos received by Moshe that can be derived through drasha
(13 midos) or a remez in a pasuk.

2) There are halachos received by Moshe that cannot be derived through
drasha or remez.

Only the latter are referred to in the Mishna and Gemara as "halacha
l'moshe misinai".

The Chavos Yair(292 #19,#21) and the Netziv(beginning of hakdama to
the sheiltos) both point out that the Rambam disagrees here with other
rishonim. Other rishonim use the terms "hilchasa", "gemiri", "halacha",
and "b'emes amru" to also mean halacha l'moshe misinai in the sense of
the second definition above. According to the Rambam these terms can be
either the first or second definitions, but only the hard term "halacha
l'moshe misinai" is limited to the second definition.

In light of the above we can answer Joel's question in one of two ways:

1. There is no problem with a person deriving a halacha l'moshe misinai
from svara as long as it can't be derived through drasha or remez. The
gemara (Sukka 28b) you bring asks why we need a pasuk for a halacha
l'moshe misinai because there are no drashos or remazim associated with
a h"mm.

2. Even if you would posit that a halacha l'moshe misinai cannot be
derived from logic -- (Tosfos Bava Basra 101b s.v Hamotzi seems to support
this; he says a "hilchasa gemiri la" would not make sense if the halacha
could be based on reason.) there is no contradiction to to this from
the gemara. The gemara is supporting the concept for nevuah of a chacham
(daas torah?) by saying a chacham could "say a thing that turns out to be
a halacha l'moshe misinai". In other words a chacham can intuit, through
his nevuah, a halacha l'moshe misinai without the use of strict logic.

All the best
-ephi

1-- is the olam noheg like rabbi blumenkrantz that birthday candles are
assur ? [ tho we dont pasken from artscroll kids books , arecent bedtime
story shows an adorned cake...]

2---am i incorrect that it seems that the olam doesnt say the psukim that
are included in kaddish shalem ['kabel brachamim...'] in both nusach
ashk and nusach sfard [but not ari or edot hamizrach, i think]? why not?

R' Gershon Dubin said:
> <<Anyone know how and why Devai Haseir, which has to do with removing
> tragedy, got associated with weddings?>>

> More a problem than "od yishama"? "sos tasis vesagel ha'akara"?

I assume both of those are included because they contain relevent meshalim
("qol chasan", and the notion of an aqarah having children). There is
nothing in Dvei Haseir that touches on the inyan.

R' Yisrael Dubitsky said:
> that the song was originally much longer than the 2-3 lines we know and that
> it was actually -- believe it or not -- a zemer for shabbat (not associated
> with birkat hamazon).

> Your question, though, still stands: in the form that it has come down to
> us, why was it associated with weddings and not funerals etc?

Did the lines get dropped before or after the association? If the latter,
a dropped reference to binyan bayis could have caused the placement with sheva
berachos.

Although I don't see how the connection is all that strong (see below).

But unless it were inserted into benching with much frequency, I'm not sure
why anyone would be motivated to shorten it anyway. The zimun for beris milah
is far longer. (Admittedly, few people have 7 boys that they would have as
many se'udos beris as 7 berachos. But they're comparable in number.)

> Well, R.
> Neriyah Gotel some years ago wrote a 2 part article on Devai Haser in *Or
> HaMizrah*. He shows, among other things, that Dunash had the theme of
> destruction and building again (of BhM) in many of his songs and that devai
> and haron are only from the first line, the other lines deal with building.
> Hence, the theme of binyan bayit ne'eman.

Again, only if those lines were originally included in the zimun, and later
dropped.

But how does binyan beis ne'eman justify saying something about binyan beis
habechirah? It's dachuq, IMHO.
> Yisrael Dubitsky

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

RSBA said:
> SA OC 119:1 - The Mogen Avrohom, the MB as well as the Be'er Heitev [b'shem
> Maharil] bring the gemoro in Brochos 34a - that if one is
> mispallel for his chaver he need not mention his name.

> However, that is only 'befonov' [as was the case when Moshe Rabbenu said
> "Keil no refo no lo' in the presence of Miriam], however 'shelo befonov' the
> name must be mentioned.

How do you understand this? Do you believe that if A davens for B without
knowing B's name, but his tefillah is bekavanah, with broken heart, and A is a
tzadiq gadol va'atzum, there is no to'eles?

And if so, what's the point of adding "besoch she'ar cholei Yisra'el"?

Speaking TOTALLY off-the-cuff, is it possible the issue is one of hefseiq?
That it's only adding into shemoneh esrei that requires either a name or being
befanav? After all, 119:1 refers to 18, it's not until 119:10 that the Rama
mentions Mi sheBeirach.

Here's RMKornfeld's take, taken from
<http://www.dafyomi.co.il/berachos/insites/br-dt-34.htm>:

> QUESTION: The Gemara tells us that one need not mention the name of the
> sick person that one is praying for. The MIDRASH HA'ZOHAR, however,
> seems to say otherwise. From that fact that Yakov prayed, "Save me,
> Hashem, from *my brother*, *from Esav*," the Zohar (Vayishlach) learns
> that one must be very specific when praying to Hashem!

> ANSWERS:

> (a) The Magen Avraham (119:1) cites from MAHARIL that our Gemara is
> referring to a person who is praying for a sick person *in the presence
> of* that sick person. When not in the presence of the afflicted, the
> name of the person that one is praying for must be mentioned. If so,
> Yakov was correct in being specific about his prayers, since they were
> not said in Esav's presence. (EINAYIM LA'MISHPAT) (Of course, this
> only applies when it is possible to do so -- see Rashi Bamidbar 21:1,
> "they prayed namelessly." Alternatively, perhaps they were praying after
> the enemy was already close by, and it since the enemy was before them
> there was no need to mention his name -MK.)!

> (b) It may also be suggested that one need not be specific about the
> person who is the *subject* of the prayer (i.e., who the prayer if
> benefiting). However, one must be specific about what he would like
> to be saved *from*. Hashem knows who we have in mind to pray *for*,
> but by not mentioning what Hashem is to save us *from*, we appear to
> be belittling the salvation by not recognizing the full horror of the
> possible calamity (similar to what the Maharsha suggests in Megilah 15b
> about Ester's prayer to be saved "from the dog...."). (M. Kornfeld)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

RSZN said:
> 1-- is the olam noheg like rabbi blumenkrantz that birthday candles are
> assur ? [ tho we dont pasken from artscroll kids books , arecent bedtime
> story shows an adorned cake...]

Everyone I know puts candles on their kids' cakes. (Barring Shabbos
and YT.)

-mi

Newman,Saul Z said:
>     am i incorrect that it seems that the olam doesnt say the psukim that
> are included in kaddish shalem ['kabel brachamim...'] in both nusach ashk
> and nusach sfard [but not ari or edot hamizrach, i think]? why not?

Hefseiq. I'm not sure why they're a hefseq, as they were deemed to
be be'inyan. The pesuqim during duchaning interrupt the pesuqim and
the matbei'ah berakhah. Here the kind of hefseiq involved is more one
of topic.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

Can anyone help? I couldn't recognize the topic.

-mi

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Research Question
From: Canito3 <canito3@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, July 25, 2003 12:06 am
To: <micha@aishdas.org>

Shalom,

My name is Sharon Vance and I am doing some research on haTsaddiqah
Sol Hatchuel. I am reading R' Yosef Ben Naim's Sefer Malkhai Rabanan,
specifically the maaseh about Solika.
On the third page, the author gives a 'pirush nihmad' on a incident
that happened at the grave site. He mentions several Rabbis including R'
Mordechai 'Gimfil', who wrote _Sefer Yesod Ha-Torah', and R' 'Galdman'
(Goldman?) who was alive in 1885. He also mentions Tractate Pesahim
Section 53 in the context of a discussion of martyrdom, and the martyrdom
of Hanenia Mishal and `Azriah.

I was wondering if you would be able to help me in understanding and
locating information on any of the above writings and hakhamim, or on
the two figures mentioned and their martyrdom.

I would be very grateful for any help you could provide.

B'vrakha Raba,
Sharon

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


[ 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         ]