Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 028

Monday, May 1 2006

• Re: Aruch Hashulchan vs. Mishna Berurah
• Re: Yom Tov Sheini l'bnei Galut
• Kaddish practice in 12 month
• mishum eivah - demai
• Re: Avodah V17 #25
• Re: Avodah V17 #27
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• RE: Dialectic tension
• Re: Yom Tov Sheini l'bnei Galut
• Brisker Tekiyos
• re: Yom Tov Sheni l'bnei haGolah
• Re: Moshiach Ben Yosef sources
• Re: pronouncing sheimes
• Period of the Redemption

(Aruch haShulchan is batra /a more recent authority relative to the
Mishnah Brurah. Although Aruch haShulchan on Choshen Mishpat preceded the
Mishnah Berurah, the part on Orach Chayim was published up to 10 years
after Mishnah Berurah). "AH saw the MB ; see 11:22; 12:4; 28:23; 62:4;
268:6; and other places where he mentions Mishnah Berurah by name. In
79:11 and 319:22 and elsewhere he disagrees with him by name and in
innumerable places he disagrees with him without mentioning his name:
for instance, in 55:20 he is writing against the Mishnah Berurah and
similarly in 370:13 -- this is obvious anyone who looks carefully. So
it is a mitzvah to let people know that AH is not only a Sefer Halacha
but also a response to the Mishnah Brerurah." (From Bnei Banim vol. 2
page 31) .

> Would anyone know of any sources that might imply that bnei hagolah's
> observance of two days of yom tov is due to the fact that they are not in
> Eretz Yisrael and therefore are bereft of the opportunity to observe the
> chag in its ideal form? In other words, Is "minhag avoteinu byadeinu"
> (as the rationale for the continued observance of Yom Tov Sheni in Chu"l)
> just a statement of "minhag bnei galut" differing from "minhag bnei E"Y"
> without making any kind of qualitative judgement on the differences
> between the minhagim?

Shir Hashirim Rabbah (1:6) - R' Ba b'sheim R' Yohanan, amra k'nesses
yisrael lifnei HQBH, al shelo shamarti yom tov ehad k'sikuno b'eretz
yisrael, hareini m'shameres sh'nei yamim tovim shel galuyos b'hutzah
la'aretz. S'vurah Hayisi, She'akabbel sakhar al sh'neihem, v'eini
m'qabbeles sakhar ella al ehad.

This Midrash implies that one day was ideal, and it takes two days of
observance in HUL to achieve that very ideal. Though the observance in
HUL requires twice the effort, its sakhar is only for the equivalent of
observing one day of Yom Tov.

The Midrash does not imply that by living outside of EY the observance
of Yom Tov is diminished in any form, rather that it takes more time
and effort for the same Mitzvah. Should one happen not to live in HUL,
one does not have the handicap of needing two days of observance to
equal one day of qiyum Yom Tov.

Jacob Farkas

IIUC it's generally accepted that if no other chiyuvim are present, an
avel in the 12th month takes precedence for the amud. I'm wondering what
the practice is in such a case in a minyan where the minhag follows iirc
the Rama's position that the final kaddish is said even w/o a chiyuiv
present. IIUC it's usually said by the gabbai or the Rabbi, but in this
case does the shatz say it?

KT
Joel Rich

In the case of demai certainly it is not only a question of safek.
The prohibition on eating demai is a rabbinical prohibition. The fact that
the rabbinical prohibition was instituted due to the fact that there was
a safek of a violation of a d'orisa (ie the produce may in fact be tevel)
does not make it any less a violation of a d'rabbanan.>>

Actually it does make it less of a violation. There is no beracha on
Demai. (shabbat 23a). Abaye explains because it is a safek there is no
beracha. Rava disagrees and says that since most Amei Haaretz do take
maaser it is not even on the level of a safek and so there is no beracha.

Note that this is in contradistinction to yom tov sheni that even though
it is based on a safek nevertheless there are berachot because it is a
takanat chachamim as chanah mentions.

Not that the kulah of accepting demai for korbanot on yom tov applies
only on special occasions. This again proves that the rabbis considered
demai as less than derabanan.

kol tuv
--
Eli Turkel

RDBannet wrote:
> (except
> for Yekkes who are old fashioned, blow 80, and ignore Sisra's mother).

70 times.

Arie Folger

Rn TK:
> I don't know why Lisa is so insistent on the point that Jews feel no
> sadness, no grief, no regret over the loss of life when our enemies are
> defeated. Although Golda Meir was not a religious person, her famous
> statement was classically Jewish -- to paraphrase -- more than being
> killed by the Arabs, we regret having to kill them. We do not dance on
> our enemies' graves.

I think what Golda Meir was bemoaning was "turning our sons into killers".
Not the loss of enemy life, but the loss of moral purity and clarity of
our children.

R' Ephraim Buchwald of NJOP explains her statement as follows:
: After the Six Day War, when Golda Meir said, "We can forgive you for
: killing our sons, but never for turning our sons into killers," she
: was merely paraphrasing the verse in Genesis 32:4, where the Torah
: tells us: "Va'yira Yaakov m'od," Jacob was afraid, very afraid,
: "Va'yay'tzer lo," and he was greatly distressed. Rashi comments that
: Jacob was "very afraid"--lest he be killed by his brother Esau, but
: he was even more "distressed" that, in self defense, he might have
: to kill Esau. That is the Jewish standard. That is the Jewish yard-
: tick. And that is what the State of Israel and our Torah are all
: about. If we fail to live by this yardstick, if we become K'chol
: Ha'goyim, like all the other nations, then we are no longer an Am
: Segula, a special people, a chosen people, or a moral people.

http://www.njop.org/html/yardstick.html

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

Since I have not followed this thread consistently, I'll apologize
in advance if this has already been mentioned, but if the reason for
spilling is not because of our joy being (at least minimally) tempered by
loss of human life, why _do_ we spill wine? All the reasons mentioned
are explanations of the means of spilling, not of the spilling itself.
As for the concept being foreign to Jewish thought, someone neglected
to inform Rav Yechezkel Abramsky, who expresses that very thought:
since the kosos express our joy, which is not fully complete because of
"ma'asei yadai," we spill some.

The following dialogue also took place:
>> The Yalqut Shimoni (quoting the P'siqta) cannot be read or 
>> understood any other way, not textually or conceptually. When the 
>> Midrash asks why don't we say Hallel after the first day on Pessah 
>> as we do on Sukkos and the answer is because it says Binfol Oyivkha 
>> Al Tismah, is there a different way to understand this Midrash?

> Yes. Despite your insistence that it cannot be seen as referring to
> Hashem, I say that it must be seen that way. To do otherwise would be
> to invent a machloket that has gone unremarked for centuries. It isn't
> reasonable.

If the latter quote means that "Binfol" v'gomeir refers to HKBH, I
must join with those who say that such an understanding is untenable.
The pasuk is not a statement that there is no joy binfol oyivcha; it is
a command -- "Do not rejoice." How can a commandment refer to HKBH?

EMT

R' Micha Berger wrote:
>>While the military conquest was a part in regaining control of the
>>Beis Hamiqdash and the Avodah, the Gemara nevertheless concluded
>>that it was the miracle of oil that was the reason for Q'vias Yom
>>Tov. This could help explain why we don't take into account the
>>death of those who died in battle. Had the q'vias yom tov and Hellel
>>been for the miracles of unlikely victory, who knows whether full
>>Hallel would be appropriate.

> I don't see why it wouldn't. I don't know of a single source that even
> suggests that we would shorten Hallel in such a case.

Begin with a source that we say Hallel for the Neis of a military victory
or for any other Neis where people had to be killed. Hanukah is because
of the Neis of the oil, as per the Gemara in Shabbos.

I came across this shtickl in Meshekh Hakhmah [Shemos 12:16 sv. U'vayom
Harishon Miqra Kodesh vGo'] who states the following: [paraphrased -jf]

    ...That while other nations create a holiday and celebrate on the
    day their enemies fell, it is not like that with Yisrael, for they
    will not rejoce in the downfall of their enemies or celebrate a
    holiday for that purpose, as it says Binfol Oyivkha al Tismakh vGo'
    pen Yireh Hashem V'ra B'einav vGo', that a person who has refined
    himself does not rejoice in the downfall of his enemies, because such
    happiness is evil in the eyes of God, and this is the reason we don't
    celebrate Pessah for on that day God punished the Egyptians, rather we
    celebrate Pessah because on that day God took us out of Egypt, as for
    the downfall of our enemies their is no Holiday and day for rejoicing.

    ...And that is why on Hanukah the Holiday is celebrated for the
    miracle of the oil and the reinstallation of the services in the Beis
    HaMiqdash... and as the Military leaders were the kohanim, and to
    avoid the possibility of their attributing the military victory to
    their own strength rather than to divine providence, God performed
    a miracle in the Heikhal, an area that was limited to the Kohanim,
    so that they could clearly see his involvement in the miracles that
    transpired, that these were not of natural causes.

    ...And so by the Neis of Purim, the Holiday was established neither
    on the day of Haman's hanging nor on the day that their enemies were
    killed, as this is not a time for rejoicing for Yisrael, rather the
    holiday of Purim was established on the day that they rested from
    their enemies...

    ...The Egyptians drowned on the 7th day of Pessah. Had God commanded
    us later to keep the 7th day Miqra Kodesh, people may have thought
    that this holiday was instituted in remembrance of the downfall of
    evildoers, and in truth we find the opposite, that the angels did
    not say Shirah, because HQBH is not happy in the downfall of the
    evildoers. That is why it was specifically in Eretz Mitzrayim that
    the 7th day was decreed to be Miqra Kodesh, prior to Qriyas Yam Suf,
    to show that this holiday is not to celebrate their demise. And this
    is clear in the Yalqut, that we don't recite Hallel after the first
    day of Pessah because of Binfol Oyivkha al Tismah.

AD KAHN DIVREI BA'AL HaMESHEKH HAKHMAH [paraphrased.]

The Yad L'Hakhmah [notes printed on the MH in the MH Hashaleim] quotes
the Divrei Sha'ul [RYS Natanzon ZT"L] who asks on the Meshekh Hakhmah and
on the aforementioned Yalqut from the Gemara in Megilah where Mordechai
told Haman that Binfol Oyivkha was only for Yisrael, and replies that
perhaps there is a difference between a Yisrael and a non-Yisrael, when
it is an individual. Should it be a group, Binfol Oyivkha al Tismakh
would still apply [this Teirutz is the Yad L'Hakhmah's -jf] .

>>>I heard the following from R' David Bar Hayim. It says in Mishlei
>>>24:17 "binfol oyivcha al tismach". Oyivcha, and not oyvecha, as R'
>>>Micha mistakenly quoted. In the singular.

>>While the Q'ri is Oyivkha, it is spelled like Oyevekha, which could
>>be why many people do quote it thusly. (Has anyone seen a reason why
>>the extra yud before the final kaf?)

> I don't know of one, but are you saying that it's acceptable to misquote
> a pasuk, even after the correct reading has been pointed out, simply
> because the ktiv differs from the kri? I don't understand that.

No. But when Seforim don't have Nekudos, and are quoting other Seforim
who quote using the K'siv rather than the Q'ri, it is understandable
that people may have seen the K'siv in print. I have seen the K'siv
quoted many times in Seforim, and used to quote that Pasuk as Oyevekha
until I finally saw the Pasuk inside while learning Mishlei in Yeshiva.
Needles to say, I have since known it is Oyivkha, but I do not fault
those who don't know that.

>>>R' Bar Hayim notes that Seder Eliyahu Rabbah at the end of chapter
>>>18 actually refers to the conflict between Mishlei 24:17 and
>>>Mishlei 11:10. Seder Eliyahu Rabbah says on this, "Keitzad yitkaymu
>>>shnei ketuvim halalu?" How can these two psukim coexist? And it
>>>answers by saying that "binfol oyivcha al tismach" refers
>>>specifically to a fellow Jew. Which, R' Bar Hayim points out, fits
>>>the fact that the singular is used in Mishlei 24:17. It doesn't
>>>refer to our enemies, but rather to a personal enemy, or opponent,
>>>and one who is a fellow Jew, to boot.

>>Ba'avod Risho'im Rinah is used in the Gemara Sanhedrin 39b on the demise
>>of Ahav.

> Indeed. Seder Eliyahu Rabba gives an example of a *fellow* Jew. Not just
> another Jew. Someone who happens to be Jewish, but who oppresses Jews on
> a national level, like Ahav, Yannai, Sharon, or the like, would obviously
> not be similar in any way to the example given by Seder Eliyahu Rabba.

Fair.

...
>>The concept of Binfol Oyivkha is not one that should be mentioned as
>>hanhagah of HQBH. Read the P'suqim in Mishlei 24:17-18, where in
>>Pasuq 18 [the reason as to why Bifol Oyivkha Al Tismah is because]
>>pen yir'eh hashem v'ra b'einov, v'heishiv mei'alav appo.

> I don't think that implies that it cannot be applied to Hashem.
> The Egyptians stood against Him; not just against us. But in any case, I
> was trying to find a way to answer for those who apply "binfol oyivcha" to
> "maaseh yadai tov'im ba-yam". Because such a thing requires an explanation
> in the face of the conclusion of that Gemara.

Rejoicing at a time of Binfol Oyivkha is a negative character trait, for
people. That HQBH does not rejoice in the Mapalah of Risho'im is another
subject altogether. Binfol Oyivkha would be a reason for US to supress
joy at the downfall, HQBH has his own reasons.

>>The message of the Gemara is that HQBH is not happy with the Mapalah of
>>R'shaim. When R' Yosei Bar Hanina mentions hu eino sas aval aheirim
>>meisis, he is not specifically referring to Q'riyas Yam Suf, but on the
>>earlier meimra of Sh'ein HQBH Same'ah B'mapalasan shel R'sha'im.

> But it includes Kriyat Yam Suf. The Gemara makes it perfectly clear
> that Hashem does cause us to rejoice in such a case, and there is not
> so much as a hint that we are intended to limit that joy. It was not
> maaseh yadeinu which drowned in the sea, but maaseh yadav.

So what? It is always Ma'aseh Yadav who is "Falling" in a case of Binfol
Oyivkha. However, we are supposed to refrain from rejoicing. When the
Gemara says Aval Akheirim Meisis, it is not carte blanche to rejoice
formally, rather it is a statement of fact, that while HQBH created a
situation that he Kaveyakhol would not rejoice, this situation causes
others to rejoice. This is not an invitation to Qevias Hallel, or Yom Tov,
even as it may be a "happy" time.

...
>>The Yalqut Shimoni (quoting the P'siqta) cannot be read or
>>understood any other way, not textually or conceptually. When the
>>Midrash asks why don't we say Hallel after the first day on Pessah
>>as we do on Sukkos and the answer is because it says Binfol Oyivkha
>>Al Tismah, is there a different way to understand this Midrash?

> Yes. Despite your insistence that it cannot be seen as referring to
> Hashem, I say that it must be seen that way. To do otherwise would be
> to invent a machloket that has gone unremarked for centuries. It isn't
> reasonable.

When the Yalqut asks why WE don't say hallel, and answers because WE 
should not rejoice, how can you ignore the very straightforward message?

>>> A religion that's all about the "dialectic tension" would see a
>>> machloket between Abbaye and Rabba and say, "Well, maybe both of them
>>> are right." The entirety of Shas could be contained in a single
>>> volume if that's what Judaism was about.

>>Both are right. Halakhah could only be like one of them, though.

> But we wouldn't have Abbaye say one thing, Rabba say something
> contradictory, and just leave it like that. It would be discussed.
> If it wasn't discussed, that tells us that they didn't actually contradict
> one another.

That statement takes Hasimas haTalmud to a whole new level.

>>>Furthermore, I don't believe that Judaism is skewed either overly
>>>towards din *or* overly towards rachamim. Not a single verse in the
>>>Tanach suggests that *we* should worry ourselves about the downfall
>>>of our enemies. Not a single Gemara says it either. On the
>>>contrary, there are many verses and several Gemaras which say
>>>exactly the opposite. In the face of this, I cannot see how anyone
>>>could seriously suggest that later sources were essentially
>>>disputing the Gemara and Tanach. They *must* be read differently.

>>How would one the aformentioned P'siqta differently?

> I've made a suggestion. You ruled it out. I stand by my suggestion.

Your suggestion is to disregard the Pesiqta, quoted by the Yalqut,
altogether.

My suggestion is to find one instance in our history where we celebrated
the demise of a Rasha outright. If Aval aheirim meisis is the way you
understand it, there should be a plethora, as our enemies were many.

Jacob Farkas

David Cohen wrote:
> If it were only the "correct" opinion that were important, than all
> you would need is the Mishneh Torah

If you read the Rambam's introduction to the Mishne Torah the Rambam
says exactly that. Here is a quote (in translation):
    "... so that a person should need no other work in the World in
    the rules of any of the laws of Israel; but that this work might
    collect the entire Oral Law, including the positive legislations,
    the customs, and the negative legislations enacted from the time
    of Moshe Our Teacher until the writing of the Talmud, as the Geonim
    interpreted it for us in all of the works of commentary they wrote
    after the Talmud. Thus, I have called this work the [Complete]
    Restatement of the [Oral] Law (Mishneh Torah), for a person reads
    the Written Law first and then reads this work, and knows from it the
    entire Oral Law, without needing to read any other book between them."

Compare with S"A haRav 1:8 (Mahadura Tinyana), where he says that Kdushas
Shabbos vYom Tov are above the realm of space and time but it illuminates
in this (earthly) world in each place according to it's specific time
zone, and that is why in Chutz L'Oretz there are two days Yom Tov (as
in C"L it takes 48 hours for all that Kdusha to come down), and that is
why that those who come from E"Y to C"L even if they plan to return must
keep two days.

Kol  Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
> ( BTW, AFAIK, the shuls that you refer tore "Brisker 
> tekiot" are doing so despite the fact that R CS never made them mandatory  
> anywhere outside of his immediate small shul in Brisk ).

Yeshivas Brisk in Chicago is so Noheg.

HM

A rav here in Baltimore, Rav Menachem Pheterson, found the following
mekor: Shulchan Aruch HaRav paskens that a ben E"Y must keep two days
in Chu"l. The he'arot of R. Avraham Dovid Levitat comment that this is
due to the fact that he is lacking (for that chag) the inherent kedusha
of E"Y and therefore needs two days of YT to achieve the necessary
kedushat hachag. R. Levitat cross-references the Likutei Torah which
credits the idea to the Arizal and R. Moshe Kordevero. See Shulchan
Aruch HaRav, back of first volume, page 183 on bottom of page.

Any more mekorot would be welcome!

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:26:18 -0400, "R Davidovich" <rdavidovich@cox.net> wrote:
>If anyone here has a list of Marei Mekomos about Moshiach Ben Yosef, would
>you please e-mail it to me or tell me where such a list may be found?

I don't know how comprehensive it is, but you might want to try Raphael
Patai's _The Messiah Texts_.

Lisa

> Now two tangents some may wish to pursue:
> Zemiros: some sing them with shem Hashem, others not. My husband not,
> my father yes.
> Girls learning Torah shebe'al peh: do the Satmar who don't allow their
> girls to learn even Chumash -- let alone Mishna and Gemara -- do they
> allow them to say birchos hashachar with those pesukim and the mishna
> "Eilu devarim"?

Though labelled as tangents, they may actually shed light on the original
question.

My father z"l taught us to sing z'miros without mentioning the shem
shamayim, for two reasons: because many tunes call for repeating partial
phrases (e.g., a common tune for "Baruch Keil Elyon" which repeats
the word "laKeil" in the refrain three times), and because there is no
prohibition, and hence a not-negligible possibility, of interrupting
in the middle of a phrase after having mentioned the Sheim but without
having completed the thought. The latter reason applies, as well,
to p'sukim quoted in the course of Torah study. On the other hand,
these reasons do not apply (or at least are far less likely to apply)
when saying the birchos haTorah or the Haggadah.

What Chassidic circles allow their daughters to do, I don't know,
but a similar situation of prohibition of Torah study applies to males
as well: on Tisha b'Av. There the din is that we are permitted to say
those p'sukim as well as the mishnayos that are said on a daily basis,
because it is a part of the seder hayom. In effect, it is treated as
t'filla, as opposed to limud Torah. The same would be applicable to the
Hagaddah as well.

EMT

A student of the Vilna Gaon wrote a book on Mashiah Ben Yoseph (Part of
intro and link follows)

Mr. Yoav Bar Am of Boston turned to Rav Bar-Lev some time ago to translate
the book "Kol HaTor" written by Rav Hillel of Shklov, a student of the
Vilna Gaon. This book speaks of the period of the redemption and it
contains wondrous explanations of the Gaon on this topic. The book was
translated and may be studied from this website. A link to it on the
yedidNefash.com web site is below.

<http://www.yedidnefesh.com/kaballah/kol-hator>

Mike

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


[ 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         ]