Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 010

Thursday, April 22 2004

• Re: Limmud or Ma'aseh?: V'hogisoh Boh Yomom Voloiloh
• Re: Circuses... NOT your father's Oldsmobile
• Re: Circuses... NOT your father's Oldsmobile
• cooking in chametz pots and kitchen for Pesach
• Shmurah Kitniyos
• Shutefus and Demus haGuf
• Re: heresy
• Re: dateline and Australia
• Dateline
• Re: dateline and Australia
• Re: Heicha kedusha and informal minyanim
• Re: Heicha kedusha and informal minyanim
• RE: davening in plane
• Re: Shmurah Kitniyos
• Re: Heicha kedusha and informal minyanim
• Re: Heicha kedusha and informal minyanim
• Re: Heicha kedusha and informal minyanim
• RE: davening in plane
• dateline and Australia
• Re: cos shel eliyahu
• Re: Limmud or Ma'aseh?: V'hogisoh Boh Yomom Voloiloh

On 21 Apr 2004 at 1:24, Micha Berger wrote:
> I would have said differently. They didn't reject as much as chose not
> to accept RCV's chiddush.

I don't think RCV was the first to say it. See, for example, Sha'arei
Tshuva 3:177 (I think that's the one I saw inside this morning - I
don't have the sefer here, but it's in the part where he describes kas
ha'leitzanim - seguing in with another recent topic). Rabbeinu Yona was
a Rishon, and note that he does allow for making a parnassa.

> On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 09:06:37AM +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
> : Why do you say it was rejected? I didn't say that there's anything 
> : wrong with working. I said that when you're not working, you should 
> : be learning. Do you think RSRH went to circuses (R"L) when he wasn't 
> : taking care of his community? 

> Actually, RSRH recommends travel. He waxes on about his trips to the
> Alps.

Travel isn't the circus. It's well known that much of European Rabbonus
in the pre-war period went to Baden (I think that's what it was called),
where they would take long walks in the forests. My guess is that they
often spoke with each other in learning while they were walking, and
likely sat in the fresh air and learned when they were not in the forest.

> ...
> : Learning musar isn't learning? 

> No. Vehara'ayah: according to ba'alei mussar, women are mechuyavos in
> mussar learning.

Not a proof. If mussar learning is designed to build character (which it
is supposed to be), then women OUGHT to be m'chuyav in it just as they
are obligated to learn any other halachos that they are required to keep.

> Perhaps one could make a chiluq between learning Toras mussar and
> actual mussar learning. Making the distinction between "about it"
> (which is Torah) and "it" (which belongs in Hil' Dei'os and Hil'
> Teshuvah). Learning Hil Dei'os in the Yad is talmud Torah. Acting on
> what's learnt is not. 

> Those who followed tenu'as hamussar were doing both.

Again, I'm not arguing that it's not important to have middos, be a
good person, etc. (which is how I view the goal of learning mussar).
And assuming that mussar brings you to that, then there is definitely
a to'eles in learning that. What I am saying is that wasting time (TV,
newspapers, etc.) is not something you can excuse - you should be learning
Torah instead.

Ain hachi nami that none of us do that with 100% perfection (and I'm not
even close to it - I waste far too much time in front of the computer
screen). But I look at that as the (perhaps unattainable) ideal.

 - Carl

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

> whether Christianity (obviously not today's

why obviously? 1=3 is oecumenic christian dogma. their differences
concern us not. haklhi kara shemam minim shehem minim miminim shonim.

/dw

REMT stated the following:
>Medrash Rus Rabba on the posuk ba'asher teilchi eileich: "Ein darkan shel 
>b'nos Yisraeil laleches l'vatei tiatra'ot ul'vatei kirkasa'ot shel ovdei 
>kochavim." Note that (1) it's not stated as an issur, but as ein derech; 
>in other words, es past nit; (2) it's only shel ovdei kochavim.

Isn't "`ovdei kokhavim" the censored version of "goyim"?  And, therefore, 
the text refers to all circuses run by any non-Jews?

[Email #2. -mi]

RCS stated the following:
>I don't recall Rav Moshe referring to AZ in that tshuva, and there's
>a huge dispute among the poskim whether today's Christians are ovdei
>AZ.

The Rema in OH 156:1, as printed in the Mishna Berura editions, does
indeed state that "Kutim" are not `ovdei AZ. But in the original printing
of the Shulhan Arukh, the Rema refers to "Goyim." And "goyim" includes
ALL non-Jews: Xtians, Muslims, Buddhists, cannibals, sun-worshippers,
Wicams, and whatever else you can think of.

Please consider the need to be PC at the time of the various printings
of the Rema.

~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:laser@ieee.org

From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> No, the MB (447:S"K 58) says mishum chumra dechametz we don't say stam
> keilim einam benei yomam.  See there, where the halacha specifically deals
> with cooking in a chometzdik kitchen and the conclusion is that it's assur
> for the above reason.

 Thanks for your response.

You are correct, the MB 447,58 says that bcs of ch"dePesach we do not
say stam kelim EBY. He then explains the chumra, people are unlikely
to be particular with things that are muttar, it's lav ada'atey, unlike
mamesh non kosher belios which one would clearly be aware of.

However, there in the B"H he explains that there are those who understand
that the example given in the ReMA is not a general example but a specific
example. I.e. he is not referring to ALL pots; rather a particular type
of pot which is in constant use and therefore can only be considered
EBY when we know with certainty that it is indeed an EBY. I think he
means this in all cases not just for Pesach.

Re cooking in ch pots and kitchen for Pesach

The MB 58, is speaking of a situation where there is no shishim against
the belios of ch and the only hetter is that it is pagum. What is the
halacha if we have both shishim against the belios and BY? or perhaps
just shishim? May one leChatchila cook for Pesach in such circumstances?

meir

An aspiring entrepreneur asked me what the halacha would be if he produced
"shmura kitniyos" (me'she'as ketzirah, baked within eighteen minutes of
water being added). Lichora lo tehei shifcha chamura me'gevirta?

YGB

On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 03:40:50PM +0300, proptrek wrote:
: > whether Christianity (obviously not today's

: why obviously? 1=3 is oecumenic christian dogma. their differences
: concern us not. haklhi kara shemam minim shehem minim miminim shonim.

I'd agree with your statement had the following two things not been true:
1- You're lumping together people who lived 800 years ago with people living
tofay.
2- You're lumping together people who recognize themselves as different
faith communities.

Is a 20th cent Baptist to be considered only ignorably different than
a 13th cent Catholic?

To give an example, not that I want to teach Xian theology on this list:
There is a big different between a Church that teaches that 3=1 in some
mysterious way ("Certum est, quia impossibile est"), and one that teaches
belief in a 1 that only looks like 3 to people.

The difference between shutefus and monotheism can be subtle. Someone who
doesn't know what the sefiros are, and yet still believes in them, could
quite likely be a believer in shutefus or gashmiyus even by definitions
other than the Rambam's.

One church could teach a position on the other side of the line than
the other. For that matter Catholicism could have crossed the line during
the Counterreformation. (Not that I think it did; but I don't value my
opinion too much on the subject.)

To end on a note a little further away from the shmutz....

Related is a machloqes between the Rambam (Moreh I) and the Rihal (Kuzari
V).

The Rambam, in a famous statement in the Morah, writes that every
attribute ascribed to G-d is really one of the following two kinds
of statements:
1- What Hashem isn't. E.g. Omnipresent is a statement of His lack of
location.
2- How Hashem's actions appear. E.g. Rachum, Noqeim, Dayan haEmes...

The Kuzari classifies three kinds of statements:
1- What Hashem isn't.
2- Properties of Hashem's relationship to creation.
3- How Hashem appears to us through is actions.

By creating that middle class of attributes, the Rihal has a place to
put sefiros that the Rambam does not. To the Rambam, they're either
unreal products of human perception, or one is assiging a demus haguf
to the Borei. To the Rihal, they could be the demus of the Borei-Beri'ah
relationship.

The impression I'm under is that there are supporters for classifying
the sefiros in either of the latter two categories.

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 15th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            harmony?

> digression #2. The PHM Hullin 1:1 also contains the claim that in
> the Maghreb they executed many people for heresy.

My initial question was how the Hazon Ish dealt with this. RSG points
out that the standard edition mistranslates this passage. This raises
the question of whether the Hazon Ish would have reassessed his position
in the light of this evidence (see Rama HM 25:2).

Several people have quoted the Hazon Ish's position on revising one's
opinion in the light of new information. I've never seen it inside, and
in any case I don't know if it applies here (the Yemenites certainly had
a continuous tradition of studying PHM in the Arabic, and it's evidence
of a historical fact rather than a halachic opinion).

David Riceman

On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 13:15 +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
> In addition if one measures distance by degrees on the globe it makes 
> little sense if one is near the poles where each degree is only a 
> small physical distance.

why say just near the poles, what about at the poles themself.

Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il> wrote:
> The Brisker Rav's shita is straightforward but leaves one with an 
> uncomfortable feeling when a town can be on two sides of the dateline 
> and so wierd questions arise about crossing town on shabbat.

Though Shut Bnai Tzion points out that a very similar thing can be seen
in gemara RH, about a case where the shluchim arrived in one village
in time to tell them that Yom Kippur was about to start, but they did
not manage to get to the next village over, which was within the first
village's techum shabbat. Bnai Tzion takes this as proof that there
is nothing inherently wrong with having the dateline run through an
inhabited country. He does avoid the 'chucha veitlula' that might result
from having Shabbat on one side of the street and chol on the other, by
positing that the dateline has an appreciable width, and that the area it
covers has a din of officially unresolvable safek, like bein hashmashot.
This 'twilight zone' covers much of the North Island of NZ, including,
IIRC, Auckland.

> I actually understand less the CI shita though it seems more logical.
> As a review Jerusalem is about 35 degrees east of Greenwich and so
> the dateline is approximately 125 degrees east if G.
> However, the coast of Asia is far from a straight line.
> note that 15 degrees = 1 hour difference in time
...
> so if we define the halachic dateline as the zigzag of the coast it 
> crosses some 80 degrees or over 5 time zones!

Yes.  That is his shita, though.

> In Australia the 125 parallel crosses over the desert with only Perth 
> being on the Israeli side of the dateline. Most of the continent is on 
> the other side with Melbourne being about 150 degrees East of G.
> It is not clear to me whether we go by the majority of the land or 
> people which puts Australia on the other side of the dateline (ie 
> shabbat is not saturday) or do we say that if a small portion is on 
> the Israeli side it is enough.

Yes, that is his shita. Whenever the line hits land, it veers off to
the east, and includes the whole land on the EY side, so that there is
nowhere in the world where the line is closer to EY than 90 degrees.

> As others have pointed out how about islands off of Australia?

He holds that they are on the other side, as is the sea off the coast.
As far as I know, the same people who avoid spending a Sunday in Japan,
in order to be choshesh for his opinion, also avoid boating in eastern
Australia on Sundays. Mind you, when I lived in Melbourne I never actually
heard from anyone that they personally did this, but I did hear that
there were such people in the community.

I'm not sure what he holds about swimming (i.e. does the line go along
the continental shelf or the waterline? High tide or low?) Nor do I
know what he holds about islands with bridges to the mainland, e.g.
Phillip Island. It would not be inherently unreasonable to say that
building the bridge could change the halacha; when the Eiffel Tower was
built, some Rabbanim held that this made Shabbat come in later in Paris.
But if the CI holds that building the Phillip Island bridge moved the
halachic dateline, then what if one day we bridged the Bering Strait?

> In seems to me that the only shitah that really makes sense equates 
> Shabbat with the local Saturday. In practice this is what is done.
> For whatever reasons some charedim avoid Japan and Hawaii because of a 
> safek with sahabbat but no one seems to avoid Australia though it has 
> many of the same problems.

I've never heard of anyone actually avoiding Hawaii (to be choshesh for
the shita of R Tukachinsky). I've heard of people avoiding Japan because
of the CI's shita; those people would not avoid Australia, because
according to the CI there is no need to. The CI is a daat yachid,
but evidently strong enough that some people are choshesh for him,
at least lechumra. The opinions that have the dateline running through
mainland Australia (including R Shlomo Goren, who has it running right
through Canberra, so that Melbourne is OK but Sydney is on the wrong
side) are such yechidim that nobody (that either of us have heard of)
worries about them at all.

> In addition if one measures distance by degrees on the globe it makes 
> little sense if one is near the poles where each degree is only a 
> small physical distance.
> The only way out is to declare that G-d arranged that Jews would not 
> populate areas that are problematical (except for Australia)

The problem with such a 'solution' is that it falls apart the day that
K"K Antarctica is founded, and if by that time this speculation has been
elevated to the status of a nevuah, and tilei tilim shel halochos have
been built on it, then it won't be pretty. In any case, it's already
violated because Jews do live in NZ, which is not only problematic for
those who are choshesh for the CI, but also for the 'derech haemtzai'
of the Bnei Tzion.

 -- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

> In Australia the 125 parallel crosses over the desert with only Perth 
> being on the Israeli side of the dateline. Most of the continent is on 
> the other side with Melbourne being about 150 degrees East of G....

> For whatever reasons some charedim avoid Japan and Hawaii because of a 
> safek with sahabbat but no one seems to avoid Australia though it has 
> many of the same problems.

The dateline gets discussed a lot when you live in Australia, as I
well remember from the three years when we lived there in the '80's.
IIRC no part of Japan is on the same side of the dateline as Israel,
which is why Japan is more of a problem than Australia. Also IIRC having
part of your country/continent on the same side as Israel--even though
it is only a small part of Australia that is on that side--outweighs
considerations of both landmass and population.

Also IIRC it is where the landmass is, not where the population is, that
counts. For example if you had a country in which part of the country
was on the same side of the dateline as Israel, but all the Jews in that
country were on the other side--I think you would go with Israel.

At this time of year we can also have mind-boggling discussions about
sefira and the dateline. If you travel and keep counting in order,
every time the sun sets again, you can find yourself arriving at your
destination with your count off by a day from the day of the omer that
the locals are at.

I don't remember whether it is travelling westward or eastward that
results in this strange outcome, but I do remember that some Aussies
avoid travelling in whatever direction it is that causes problems.
To be honest, no matter how assiduously I applied my brain to this
problem and no matter how carefully I studied the globe, I never could
get my mind around the international dateline.
  Just can't get it at all.

Oh, one other example of strange dateline consequences--my husband once
travelled from the States to Australia and managed to miss Asara beTeves
altogether, except for one hour he had to fast in Hawaii.

  Omer Day 15
 -Toby Katz

Old me:
> "[Since, according to R' Yaakov Kaminetzky, the reason that some 
> yeshivos do not have a chazaras hashatz for mincha is because the 
> takanah of chazaras hashatz only applied to a beis k'neses - and not a 
> beis medrash,].....

RJR:
>>>What is the source of this restriction of the takkana? Does it apply to shacharit as well? 

I have seen a heicha kedusha done for shacharis as well as mincha.

RJR: Does anyone hold of it anywhere else than in a Yeshiva?

Well, RDC didn't disapprove of it it in informal minyanim taking place
outside of a beis kneses.

RJR: >>>Hmmm-I thought that one of the reasons for the schar for mincha
was doing it in the middle of a distracting day

Don't confuse chazaras hashatz with mincha itself. Even with a heicha
kedusha, one is still davening mincha b'tzibur in the middle of a
distracting day.

RJR: >>>I've always found it ironic that the speakers at a wedding
praise hkb"h for all his chesed but can't find the 5 minutes for tfillat
hatzibbur to the same HKB"H>>>

I agree with your sentiments, but you are again confusing chazaras
hashatz with t'filla b'tzibbur. Even with a heicha kedusha, one still
has a t'filla b'tzibbur. We should keep in mind that the Rambam and
his son R' Avraham recommended abolishing chazaras hashatz entirely.
(See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n100.shtml#14>) While we
may not have the power to do so, perhaps it is not so wrong to limit
chazaras hashatz to its original terms.

KT
Aryeh

In Avodah V13 #9 dated 4/21/04 Joelirich@aol.com writes:
>> RDC answered me: "Yes, I think that is a good sevarah. Anyway, the whole
>> idea of davening at a chasunah is a sha'as hadchak, what with the all
>> of the distractions...."

> and at midday work minyanim? Hmmm-I thought that one of the reasons
> for the schar for mincha was doing it in the middle of a distracting day

But the schar is for deliberately removing yourself from the distractions
for a few minutes--i.e., ideally you would leave work and go daven
in a shul or shtibel, or at least find a quiet room for your minyan.
It's very bedi'eved to daven in the middle of all the hubbub of your
workplace, even if you do have ten guys together.

Davening at a wedding is usually in the middle of hubbub, like in a
hallway or corridor where people are continually passing by, as I saw
myself at a recent wedding [where I needed to get from point X to point
Y and could do so only by passing in front of a bunch of guys davening
shmoneh esrei--very lo na'im, but that's a tangent].

  Omer Day 15
 -Toby Katz

> If 10 people are near each other - could they do tefilla betzibur -
> including Shoyneh Esre - sitting?

How near do they have to be? In the same "room" -- then the whole section
of the plane might count.

(but you would also have the problem of davenning with a mixed crowd...so
maybe it's assur to daven in your seat.)

Akiva

In a message dated 4/21/04 6:53:21 PM EDT, rygb@aishdas.org writes:
> An aspiring entrepreneur asked me what the halacha would be if he produced
> "shmura kitniyos" (me'she'as ketzirah, baked within eighteen minutes of
> water being added). Lichora lo tehei shifcha chamura me'gevirta?

See S"A ADMH"Z 453:5 taken from the MG"A s"k 3. (OTOH the Issur is also
on oils).

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 04/21/2004 6:17:19 PM EDT, T613K writes:
> But the schar is for deliberately removing yourself from the
> distractions for a few minutes...
> It's very bedi'eved to daven in the middle of all the hubbub of your
> workplace, even if you do have ten guys together.
 
> Davening at a wedding is usually in the middle of hubbub...

WADR in many cases that's because we allow it to be so (ie the baal
simcha hasn't thought about it in advance and no one wants to ask people
to go out of their way to find an empty room because everyone is "used
to" davening in the hallway on such occasions.)

[Email #2. -mi]

In a message dated 04/21/2004 6:54:37 PM EDT, AStein@wtplaw.com writes:
> I agree with your sentiments, but you are again confusing chazaras
> hashatz with t'filla b'tzibbur. Even with a heicha kedusha, one still
> has a t'filla b'tzibbur. We should keep in mind that the Rambam and
> his son R' Avraham recommended abolishing chazaras hashatz entirely.
> (See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n100.shtml#14>) While we
> may not have the power to do so, perhaps it is not so wrong to limit
> chazaras hashatz to its original terms.

1. Reccomendation was because people were being mvazeh it
2. I purposely used language of tfillat hatzibbur(see Rambam Tfilla 8:1)
as elucidated by R'YBS and discussed here previously.

KT
Joel RIch

> We should keep in mind that the Rambam and
>his son R' Avraham recommended abolishing chazaras hashatz entirely.
>(See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n100.shtml#14>) While we
>may not have the power to do so, perhaps it is not so wrong to limit
>chazaras hashatz to its original terms.

The Rambam noted that chazaras hashatz causes beracha lvatalah when no one
pays attention because they are talking etc. Therefore he instituted that
everyone pray aloud with the shatz. He clearly felt that if people would
listen then chazaras hashatz should not be abolished. See Radvaz(4:94)
who notes the decree was specifally for the tiime of the Rambam and
Yechava Daas (5:12) who has a full discussion. In the 14th volume of
Encyclopeida Talmudis there is a major article on chazaras hashatz where
it is noted that the Rambam's takana might have been limited to Shabbos
and Yom Tov when the shul was crowded. Everyone agrees that chazaras
hashatz is a takana of chazal - meaning one can not readily abolish it.

Daniel Eidensohn

<<< does it make sense to say that, with respect to an informal minyan
of ten men (which I had just led), one did not need a chazaras hashatz,
because the takanah never applied to such a minyan? Is this a good
sevarah?" RDC answered me: "Yes, I think that is a good sevarah.>>>

If the takanah doesn't apply to such a minyan, then if they *had* said
a full chazara, wouldn't it have been brachos lvatalos?

(Not being sarcastic; trying to understand what is meant by "the takanah
never applied".)

Akiva Miller

On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 00:28 +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
> (but you would also have the problem of davenning with a mixed crowd...so
> maybe it's assur to daven in your seat.)

I seem to remember hearing once that one only needs a mechitza in a place
that's kovea l'tefilliah. i.e. a shul. But if you would just pick up a
minyan somewhere, i.e. in an airport lobby, one doesn't need a mechitzah.
Though this could very well be wrong. don't think it's ever mattered in
practice for me.

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:41:27 EDT, T613K@aol.com wrote:
> The dateline gets discussed a lot when you live in Australia, as I
> well remember from the three years when we lived there in the
> '80's.  IIRC no part of Japan is on the same side of the dateline
> as Israel, which is why Japan is more of a problem than Australia. 
> Also IIRC having part of your country/continent on the same side as
> Israel--even though it is only a small part of Australia that is on
> that side--outweighs considerations of both landmass and population.

Thanks for the info.
The question is why does the small part of Australia on the Israeli 
side outweigh the rest except for reasons of convenience?
Again, all this is according to CI. According to Brisker Rav it seems 
clear that Melbourne is on the other side as all that counts is 90 
degrees east of Jerusalem.

 -- 
Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 4/22/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

R. Shalom Kohn wrote
> Our minhag is to distribute the wine from the cos shel eliyahu amongst
> the other glasses, for the fourth cos. Chassidic minhag -- what could
> be better than shirayim of Eliyahu Hanavi?

And when is the cup poured in your minhag?
What about regular ashkenazi minhag? If after Hallel, then presumably
it is not yotze da'at HaRama on this issue.

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

In Avodah V13 #9 dated 4/21/04  Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes:
>>: Learning musar isn't learning? 

> No. Vehara'ayah: according to ba'alei mussar, women are mechuyavos in
> mussar learning.

You have committed a logical fallacy.  

It goes like this:

A.  Women are not obligated to learn Torah.
B.  They ARE obligated to learn Mussar 
C.  Ergo, mussar is not Torah.

Here's where your syllogism fails: Women ARE obligated to learn certain
parts of Torah. They are obligated to learn what they need to know in
order to fulfill what they have to keep. They are obligated lilmod al
menas la'asos.

What women are exempt from is limud Torah lishma--learning for its
own sake.

So for example, they have to learn hilchos Shabbos. That counts as part
of their shmiras Shabbos, not as limud Torah. So they just have to read
the bottom line and can skip the footnotes.

Limud Torah without regard to whether there is immediate tachlis is
a separate mitzva, one of the taryag, and is in the same category as
tzitzis and tefillin. I suppose that women are exempt from it because
of the "yomam velaila" bit, making it hazman grama. Women have domestic
responsibilities which take priority over learning Torah at any given
time. For example, sometimes they have to take their kids to the ball
game.

So: you really cannot make the case that learning halacha is not learning
Torah, just because women are obligated to learn halacha.

In the same way, you cannot make the case that learning mussar is not
learning Torah, just because [some hold] women are obligated to learn
mussar.

So if you want to make the case that learning mussar is not learning
Torah, you will have to make that case on other grounds.

And now to segue to a slightly different thread: whether mussar counts
as limud Torah depends on who you are and what your madrega is, IMO.

If you spend hours a day learning Gemara and pick up Mesillas Yesharim
as light refreshment during recess, it's not limud Torah.

If you spend hours a day reading novels and pick up Mesillas Yesharim
as part of your kovea ittim--especially if you are not able to learn
Gemara--then it seems to me it does count as limud Torah.

If you look up every pasuk in Mishlei that the M.Y. quotes, to learn
the pesukim in context, then it is definitely limud Torah. I think.

Anyone want to start a thread on whether Tanach counts as limud Torah?

  Omer Day 15
 -Toby Katz

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


[ 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         ]