Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 013

Monday, April 17 2006

• Re: Bracha on Pizza (was: Mezonot Bread)
• Re: 3 kedusha questons
• Re: Bracha on Pizza (was: Mezonot Bread)
• Re: preparing for the second seder
• RE: Using separate drain pipes for milchig and fleishig sinks
• Re: Using separate drain pipes for milchig and fleishig sinks
• RE: Bracha on Pizza (was: Mezonot Bread)
• RE: preparing for the second seder
• Re: Avdus
• Abarbanel and spilling drops of wine
• kitniyos and minhagim
• Re: kitniyos and minhagim
• Mitzvas Shechitah and Pesach
• Re:V'imru Amen in shmoneh esrei
• The Secret of Eating at the Seder

On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 04:02:48PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
:> 3. About the MB being a Poseq Aharon. What does that even mean?

: It means that if there is a universally accepted talmid chacham who
: has the benefit of seeing all of the pesakim before him regarding a
: particular sugya and comes to a subsequent pesak regarding this sugya
: which is uncontested by his peers or by subsequent poskim of his calibre,
: it would be ill-advised to follow another course.

First, I find it interesting that WRT another din, what "der velt"
believes you're willing to consider binding precedent, in opposition to
numerous acharonim and contemporary rabbanim. (Not to mention rishonim,
but you seem to dispute that, nor to dwell on whether or not der velt
really believes it.) Yet here, the MB is poseiq acharon to the exclusion
of what the world holds, and even if there are pesaqim on which they rely.

Without dweliing on the other case, when do you personally say "puq chazi,
and when not?

The MB and the AhS differ on the strength of puq chazi. I don't know if
the MB would go as far as you're proposing, to ban common practice. It
depends if you believe his haqdamah that he was writing a survey, shelo
lema'aseh. The conversion of the MB from a collection of acharonim who
post-date the standard SA page layout to a pesaq was a campaign by a
number of American roshei yeshivos -- not the belief CC himself.

I was told by my rebbe to follow the AhS over the MB. Many of my friends
left Ner or Chaim Berlin with similar advice. So I question the CC being
poseiq acharon, or whether one exists today. There isn't any one source
who can compell people to follow one tzad over the other. (Speaking here
of observant Ashkenazim in particular, but true in general too.)

Last, to be fair to the Sepharadim amongst us, "universally" needs
to Rav Ovadia and the R's el-Qafeh (Kapach) are the nearest thing any
inter-city kehillah had to the kind of poseiq acharon of which RSC writes
in centuries.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 05:21:37PM +0200, D&E-H Bannett wrote:
: And RAF's reply:
:> Seems obvious, people are imitating angels by reciting the kedushah,
:> so they do one more step and also kara zeh el zeh, they turn to one
:> another to signal that now is the time to say kadosh 3x.

: In RAF's reply, it is not clear whether each human turner is signaling
: to the others in the minyan, or is turning to the groups of angels,
: or that the angels, for some reason, turn to each other...

"For some reason"? It seems pashut to me, "veqara zeh el zeh" is being
acted out by pretending to be an angel turning to call to each of its
neighbors.

:           ... how do the left-right turners know that the two groups,
: ofanim v'chayot hakodesh and the serafim, are located one to the left
: and and one to the right....

I do not see where the serafim are described as participating. Rather,
the ofanim vechayos haqodesh are misnas'im and then le'umasam -- le'umas
seraphim, as we just said -- the ofanim vechayos are meshbchim ve'omerim.

Who said it was one to the left and one to the right? Just that when you
speak to peers, you turn this way and that.

A little kavanah I came up with, sans maqor beyond a dictionary.

Ofanim are named for wheels. Chayos, are simply alive (particularly in
contrast to beheimos, which live to serve on the farm). Through the act of
mitzvah, the ra'ash gadol, the technological adn the natural are lifted
to the plane of the intangible, the serafim (named for burning fire).
Thus it is the qedushah our actions bring to the world which empowers
them to proclaim "Qadosh".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

Micha Berger wrote:
> I was told by my rebbe to follow the AhS over the MB. Many of my friends
> left Ner or Chaim Berlin with similar advice. So I question the CC being
> poseiq acharon, or whether one exists today. There isn't any one source
> who can compell people to follow one tzad over the other. (Speaking here
> of observant Ashkenazim in particular, but true in general too.)

Igros Moshe(OH V #13.9 page 26): "However concerning actual halacha
even though there is reason to prohibit - which is my inclination -
nevertheless someone who want to be lenient since it seems that is how
the Mishna Berura has decided - can rely on him. That is because he is
Maran of the recent times concerning matters of Orech Chaim."

Daniel Eidensohn

"David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> As usual I got a message from my shul including the earliest time I
> can start setting the table for the second seder. And as usual I don't
> understand it. Why is setting the table any worse than being machshich
> al hatchum l'dvar mitzva?

Machshich al hatechum is permitted because it's not apparent what you're
doing -- you might simply be going for a late shabbos shpatzir out in
the fields. Anyone seeing you set the table immediately knows that
you're doing it for use later.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Speaking of drain pipes, for those who use the same sink for Pesach
as they use during the year, clogged drains can pose a problem as
they produce a "backwash' of chometz water into a sink full of Pesach
dishes. An eitza is to pour a davar hapogem, such as Drano, down the
sink before "turning over".

Simcha Coffer

Assuming there are any belios, since it's at the very most irui keli
rishon and probably much less.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On April 11, 2006, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 04:02:48PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
>:> 3. About the MB being a Poseq Aharon. What does that even mean?

>: It means that if there is a universally accepted talmid chacham who
>: has the benefit of seeing all of the pesakim before him regarding a
>: particular sugya and comes to a subsequent pesak regarding this sugya
>: which is uncontested by his peers or by subsequent poskim of his calibre,
>: it would be ill-advised to follow another course.

> First, I find it interesting that WRT another din, what "der velt"
> believes you're willing to consider binding precedent, in opposition to
> numerous acharonim and contemporary rabbanim.  (Not to mention rishonim,
> but you seem to dispute that, nor to dwell on whether or not der velt
> really believes it.) Yet here, the MB is poseiq acharon to the exclusion
> of what the world holds, and even if there are pesaqim on which they rely.

Apparently what you refer to as "world" and what I refer to as "world"
is worlds apart. When I say world, I am referring to the same world the
Maharam on shas does whenever he says "makshin ha'Olam. I don't take
my queues from the olam golem. Only the opinion of talmeedey chachamim
and gedoley haPoskim matter to me. Thus, regarding "another din", I'm
not following "der velt"; I am following the opinion enunciated by the
majority of the Torah leaders today. In fact, I'm not even doing that. I'm
just trying to have a discussion about an important hashkafic issue. I
take full responsibility for my own opinions and do not rely on others
for support of my views. As far as PHBK, it is practically a unanimous
decision amongst the gedoley haPoskim. Thus, I feel I am following a
uniform derech halimud in both sugyos. I'm not sure what you want from me.

Also, I can't believe that you are implying that the gedoley haPoskim
and gedoley haRabbanim have come to their conclusions regarding "another
din" based on what der velt believes. Surely this assessment is beneath
a talmid chacham of your stature...

> Without dweliing on the other case, when do you personally say "puq chazi,
> and when not?

When there is a sha'ala l'halacha that can't be clarified by either tzad
with definitive ra'ayos and with full confidence, a dynamic that does
not apply to either one of the above-mentioned cases.

> The MB and the AhS differ on the strength of puq chazi... 

> I was told by my rebbe to follow the AhS over the MB. Many of my friends
> left Ner or Chaim Berlin with similar advice. So I question the CC being
> poseiq acharon, or whether one exists today... 

I think you're taking my posek acharon thing too far. Let's forget I
ever mentioned PA. All I mean to say is that if you have a near unanimous
decision by poskim up until the most recent of the gedoley haPoskim who
discusses the issue, the halacha seems clear. If the CI, R' Moshe, R'
Ovadyah Yosef, R' Shlomo Zalman, R' Elyashiv, R' H. Shachter (whose
pesakim I accepted when I was with the OU) would address the issue,
I would be all ears. But they don't. So what's wrong with the MB?

Simcha Coffer

On April 11, 2006, David Riceman wrote:
> As usual I got a message from my shul including the earliest time I
> can start setting the table for the second seder. And as usual I don't
> understand it. Why is setting the table any worse than being machshich
> al hatchum l'dvar mitzva?

Perhaps the mitzvah of "la salin nivlaso" which engenders the requirement
of an expedited kevura supersedes the consideration of hachana meshabos
l'shabbos whereas setting the table is not a specific mitzvah.

Simcha Coffer

On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 12:25:27AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
:> Is it? The tachlis is subject to the classic "hashkafic fork" described
:> by RYGB at <http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/forks.htm>,

: RYGB's approach is basically encapsulated in a maamar in Rav Dessler
: as he himself notes at the end of his essay but this has nothing to do
: with what I am saying...

No it is not. The idea that misnagdim seek sheleimus whereas chassidim
seek deveiqus is not the thesis of that maamar. The maamar is about the
need to be eclectic; that today we are too impoverished to exclude other
derakhim and seek one exclusively.

And that thesis has much to do with what you're saying.

Misnagdim seek to be sarim. To perfect the tzelem E-lokim within
themselves. Mussar more straightfowardly than others. To R' Chaim
Vilozhiner and R' Chaim Brisker, this happens of itself through Talmud
Torah. But still, the goal is sheleimus. Striving for a tzelem closer
to that of the Melekh is serving Him in the guise of a sar.

Chassidim don't seek to be sarim. They seek deveiqus, closeness to him.
Their serve Hashem like avadim.

The first want His loftiness, the second will forgo it in exchange for
closeness. But both serve Him.

:> Beqitzur: A sar also serves HQBH, but he does so from a position of
:> similarity.

: I'm not sure what you mean by similarity. "Ma hu aff atah" is the
: shoresh of the infrastructure of our Avodas Hashem (see Tomer Devorah)
: and applies equally to all people and to all darkey haAvodah.

Oy, read the essay. Of course they both describe the same Torah. The
question is whether "le'avedekha be'emes" is the goal of taharas haleiv,
or "vetaheir libeinu" is the goal, and a tahor leiv is one that is
capable of emesdik avodah.

And there are differences lema'aseh in having the different focus.

:> The chassid seeks deveiqus, the intimacy of an eved wbeveis
:> rabbo. The Litvaq seeks sheleimus, the development of one's tzelem
:> E-lokim, and is therefore more like the sar.

: Now this sounds interesting. It seems you are equating the terminology
: "eved" here with diveikus haleiv and the terminology "sar" with
: deveikus haMachshava (although I don't understand you characterizing
: deveikus haMachshava as tzelem elokim. Both the emoting quality and the
: intellectual quality of the mind are elements of tzelem Elokim). If so,
: this would be the first incidence of Chassidus vesus Misnagdus..

Almost, but you imposed your categories on what I wrote to produce
something new. I didn't write about heart vs mind, but about deveiqus vs
sheleimus. (Chabad, BTW, is intellectual Chassidus. Novorodak, passionate
Misnagdus. The chiluq isn't 1:1.)

Torah learning is just one approach to seeking sheleimus. Sheleimus,
be it through mussar, through limud Torah, through the holism of TIDE,
whichever, is about perfecting the tzelem.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
micha@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org   			-Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

[A touch of motivation: I couldn't find the Abarbanel in question,
but it is cited by R' Moshe Qalfon in Darkhei Moshe. So, if you choose
to join the quest, feel reassured that it's not a wild goose chase,
the maamar is real. -mi]

On soc.culture.jewish.moderated, there's been some debate over the reason
for spilling drops of wine for the plagues at the seder. Several haggadot
cite the Abarbanel saying that we spill out a little bit of wine becuase
the paseuk says "Do not rejoice when your enemy falls" so our cup should
not be "full" when we recall the annihilation of the Egyptians.

We can't find the Abarbanel that says this, though. Anybody know where
it is?

 -Ken Bloom

Can anyone tell me how they would explain to a non-religious yet kiruvable
thinking Jew, why descendants of European Jews don't eat kitniyos, just
because hundreds of years ago there was a chance that chometz might
be confused for kitniyos? I mean to explain it without coming on to
"minhag avosainu b'yadainu". Why is an outdated custom still observed
only by Jews descended from one plot of land (Europe) and no other Jews?
That with all of the Rishonim and Acharonim that were against the ban on
kitniyos, even when it was still relevant, why aren't those shitos used
and adopted now that the minhag is irrelevant? It isn't a din d'rabbanon
(read: from Chazal).

It's a later gezeira that had a place when there was an actual chashash,
but why is it still practiced today? Because that's what my zaide did
in a different era in a different culture? Is that a reason?

Also, does anyone know where can be found "hilchos minhagim"? I mean
everyone will tell you that you have to follow certain minhagim if you
meet certain criteria. But who says? Where are these rules written? Why
can Sephardim eat grasshoppers and practice polygamy and Ashkenazim can't?
Who says and where are these rules writen?

cbk 

On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 04:26:48AM -0500, CBK wrote:
: Can anyone tell me how they would explain to a non-religious yet kiruvable
: thinking Jew, why descendants of European Jews don't eat kitniyos, just
: because hundreds of years ago there was a chance that chometz might
: be confused for kitniyos? ...

I had this conversation this year both with a co worker exactly in
that situation (raised in the USSR, now exploring shemiras hamitzvos)
and with one of my sons.

I admitted to them that personally qitniyos makes no sense to me. However,
if I start questioning minhagim, I damage the entire mechanism of mesorah.
And mesorah is how the Torah itself is relayed. So, I see the value
in following customs like qitniyos in terms of the value of making
sacrifices so that the mechanism by which I received and hope to relay
the Torah is strong enough to do so.

:-)|,|ii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
micha@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507      		      -Rita Mae Brown

> That said, I will repeat that my inability to be moved by the idea of
> a qorban has little to do with qorbanos, and much to do with 2 millenia
> of galus. I'm warped by centuries of depravation.

I just read that in the bet hamikdash in general the cohen did the
shechitah though technically anyone could do it.
However, there are many proofs that on Pesach the shechitah was done
by the yisroel. One of the more famous proofs is the story with Hillel
where every came with their sheep/gpat and the knife in the hairs of the
animal. If the shechitah was done by the Cohen then the bet hamikdash
had their own knives and individuals didn't need to bring their own
knife. In addition several mishnayot take for granted that each person
shechitah their own korban.

As Micha says after 2000 years of western civilization how many of us are
willing (after learning in class) to schect their own sheep or goat? In
addition this actual maaseh would bring them closer to G-d.

Chag kasher vesameach
--
Eli Turkel

Re: SBA,'s question on ELPM's posting
>> It's simply an error: people automatically went on with "ve'imru omein"
>> after "ouse sholoum". The same error occurs at the end of benshen,
>> unless somebody is leading it.

> If so, how come no Rishon or Acharon has suggested this?

As the oseh shalom ... v'imru amen was not in the siddur in the times of
the rishonim there is no question. As shalom is so important, the request
for itt was added at the end of many prayers includingf kaddish, birkat
hamazon and shmoneh esrei. Very old siddurim end with y'hi l'ratzon,
later with oseh shalom without v'imru amen or with amen alone as an
official ending.

Amen as an ending was used at the end of sections of prayer. Among
Ashkenazim, except for boneh Yerushalayim in birkat hamazon, they have
died out. Sefaradim have preserved some. Siddurim from the times of
the g'onim have more. This has been discussed in the past on Avodah or,
perhaps, on Mesorah.

PKv"S,
David

RMB quoting Sarah Yehudit Schneider: ...
:     All neuroses, personality imbalances, and existential
:     dissatisfactions, teaches Torah, have their root in this first "sin"
:     of unholy eating...

RMB:
> Here things get dangerous. The writer is taking Rav Tzadoq to mean that
> mental illness is always a product of sin, and that people who properly
> seek their rabbi would need need to seek their therapist.

I don't think that's what she means at all. I don't understand kabbalah
very well, but I think she is saying that those aspects of human nature
that make us prone to these types of disorders have their roots in the
transformation that took place when Adam and Chava ate from the eitz
hada'at and internalized the yetzer hara.

Mental illness is not a product of a sin committed by the INDIVIDUAL
affected, his parents, etc. But the psychological composition of HUMAN
BEINGS IN GENERAL was transformed by the sin of eating from the eitz
hada'at in such a way that certain disorders became possible.

She recommends prayer and meditation as a powerful tool for overcoming
difficulties and for healing. Nowhere does she say or imply anything to
indicate that appropriate professional help should not also be sought
when necessary.

 - Ilana

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


[ 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         ]