Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 030

Wednesday, May 3 2006

• Re: pronouncing sheimes
• Married with AIDS
• Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Married with AIDS
• Re: Aruch Hashulchan vs. Mishna Berura
• Re: Aruch Hashulchan vs. Mishna Berura
• Re: Shemen Kitniyos
• Re: kitniyos and minhagim
• Re: Shach and Taz (was: Bracha on Pizza (was: Mezonot Bread) )
• Re: Aruch Hashulchan vs. Mishna Berura
• Re: Korban Pesach
• Re: population of Israel
• Re: 41 years in the Midbar?

In a message dated 5/2/2006 6:48:32am EDT,
joshua.kay@addleshawgoddard.com writes:
> RTK referred to divergent customs with respect to use of the shem
> in zemiros. This is altogether different, as zemiros are praises of
> Hashem intended to be read as written - Rav Moshe's concern about using
> the shem when partially quoting pesukim doesn't apply in that case.

In many zemiros, half-pesukim and fragments of pesukim are woven into
the poetry.

Should they therefore not be sung with the Shem Hashem? Well, I suppose
you could say that those quoted fragments have been transfigured into
something else by being incorporated into poetry. Could you not say
something similar about their use in the fixed text of the Hagada?

 -Toby  Katz
=============

A recent news article about the Vatican rethinking its anti-condom stance
has me asking what Halacha would dictate in such a situation.
<http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/01/news/pope.php>

KT,
MYG

Dr. Josh Backon cited at length various "primary sources" for the spilling
of wine, which did not include the idea of sadness for the Egyptians.

Without the benefit of printed sources for this conclusion, my
understanding (which perhaps I made up years ago) has been that the
spilling is in recognition of the posuk "kol ha-machala asher asim
b'mitzrayim lo asim alecha," that we are removing these makot from our cup
(symbolizing our lot in life), because Hashem promised that we will not
suffer from these afflictions. This seems consistent with the Maharal
quoted by Dr. Josh, "v'nir'eh li ha'taam, mikol eilu yatzileinu v'yavo'u
al soneinu," with emphasis on the "yatzileinu."

This is a more pro-Jewish than the mercy on the Egyptians rationale
which various posters have condemned, and is more consistent with the
symbolism of removal than the idea that we are throwing these makot at
the Egyptians (no throwing actually happening....)

Shalom L. Kohn 

On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 12:57:13PM -0400, Lisa Liel wrote:
: That, after all, is what R' Micha is maintaining. By reading a view into
: our mesorah that says we reduce our joy when those trying to destroy
: us are defeated or destroyed themselves, he is effectively saying that
: a view existed all along which stands in stark contrast to explicitly
: stated views in Chazal, and that no one, ever, in all the centuries that
: have elapsed since then, has discussed the contradiction....

Not quite. Because it is a stated view in Chazal, and MUCH discussed since
then. And, while RAKotler sought a place for each reason for Chatzi Hallel
(CH), the Taz and BY simply list both.

To recap:

The Pesiqta deR Kahane (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a) tells us
that a reason for CH on the 7th day of Pesach is because of "ma'asei
Yadai tov'im bayam".

This is then quoted by the Mirash Hirninu and the Yalqut Shim'oni (the
Perishah point you to Parashas Emor, remez 566).

The Midrash Harninu or the Shibolei haLeqet (our only source for it)
associate this medrash with "binfol". (I refuse to debate whether his
ra'ayah is from the qeri (text as read) or qesiv (text as written) as
that will just confuse the issue.) This is despite the fact that the
pasuq of "binfol" would literally mean not rejoincing at all, and here
it's being used to argue for ambivalence -- merging the joy of the neis
with the sorrow of what was necessary to be done to the Mitzriyim.

On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 03:16:50AM UTC, REMT wrote:
: 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?

Aside from the problem of "al" (thou shalt not) to HQBH, there is a more
explicit problem. The medrash as given by the Yalqut onward (and perhaps
earlier, I don't own a PdQ or a MH) states the story in the context of
explaining CH. Us, not HQBH. Back to the summary...

This ShL is given as an alternate reason for CH by the Beis Yoseif
(O"Ch 490:4, "Kol").

Moving on to what I learned from RAZZ's JA column....

The Taz gives this diminution of joy as the reason for CH (OC 490:3),
as does the Chavos Ya'ir (225).

The Kaf haChaim (O"Ch 685:29) brings down the Yafeh haLeiv (3:3)use this
medrash to establish the idea that we mourn the downfall of our enemy
in order to explain why there is no berakhah on Parashas Zakhor.

R' Aharon Kotler (Mishnas R' Aharon vol III pg 3) says that the gemara's
reason for CH (that the qorbanos are the same as for the previous day)
is meant to address only ch"m, and our medrash is the primary reason
for the 7th day of Pesach.

RJFarkas found the Meshekh Chokhmah (Shemos 12:16 "uveyom), who uses
"binfol" and our medrashas an argument for disassociating Purim and
Chanukah from their military victories. He also cites R' Shelomo Alkabetz
(Manos haLeivi 9:20 "Vayikhtov Mordekha") who writes that because "ein
HQBH samei'akh bemapalasan shel rasha'im", we too should not rejoice at
their downfall (mah HU af atah). We therefore celebrate Purim only for
our deliverance.

RJKay points us to the Netziv's into to HaEimeq Davar, Bereishis. He
defines "Seifer haYesharim" as the book about those who showed concern
even for the wicked, that this quality is what defines being yashar. He
holds up Avraham's atittude toward the people of Sedom as an example
for us to follow.

In a post to scjm by Sheldon Ackerman, I learned that R' Elyashiv, in
his hagaddah (pg 106, d"h "dam va'eish..."), writes as a "yeish lomar"
that we spill wine at the seider because at the time of the Mitzriyim's
suffering, Hashem's joy is incomplete.

So, regardless of whether this is /the/ reason for CH on Pesach day
7 or for spilling wine at the seider, or just a lesson one can learn
post-facto from one or both of these, I think we have succeeded in well
establishing the Jewishness of the idea that we have compassion for the
death of even evil people.

One can't say it's an assimilated value that was brought in via C and
R, or promoted by kiruv workers who want a more palatable Judaism to
sell. Nor can you blame me for maintaining some allegedly new shitah in
contrast to the clear words of Chazal. (I mean you can, I can't stop
you. You would just need to first address this long laundry list of
meqoros before I could take it to heart.)

So why doesn't "mi shemeracheim al ha'achzarim" apply? Perhaps because we
aren't talking about ignoring the real need for their distruction. Unlike
Sha'ul, who inappropriately saved Agag, we are not saying the Mitzriyim
should have been spared. Rather, that it's sad that things had come
to this.

Someone who r"l needs to have a leg amputated should have it
removed. He'll mourn its loss and the loss of everything he could have
done with it, but still okay its removal. "Mi shemeracheim" is the doctor
who lets the patient die because he had pity on the leg.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 19th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         withdrawal and submission?

[RMYG:]
> A recent news article about the Vatican rethinking its anti-condom stance
> has me asking what Halacha would dictate in such a situation.

R' Shmuel Tuvia Stern ZT"L, in his Shu"t HaShavit [volume 8, EH 13] is
of the opinion that a female condom could be permitted in a case where
AIDS may be an issue. He discusses the possibility of abstinence as well.

Jacob Farkas

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> I would say that the MB was -- as the CC writes in the haqdamah -- a
> survey of shitos that post-date the standardization of the SA page and
> its nos'ei keilim. His purpose wasn't to analyze shitos, but to present
> as many as possible....
> The AhS had a very different mission. To explain the practices of Litta.
...
> One is encyclopedic the other analytic, the Sinai and the Okeir
> Harim. They're both essential parts of talmud Torah. Simply different
> things.

I essentially agree with this. As afar as Roshei Yeshiva favoring MB
I would re-iterate the following:
MB was in greater favor with mussar yeshivos. 'nuff said on that..
I would agree that AhS is better for advanced students going for Semihca
but let's face it, the avearge Yeshiva student is generally not at that
level or at least no construed to be at that level and MB is far more
universally accessible.

In conclusion and with apolgies to Shakespeare

The fault my dear Brutus lies not with the Sefer Mishnah Brura, rather
in that we have made OUSELVES its underlings - i.e. to the exlclusion
of other equally valuable Sifrei Halahcah.

{See the Rema's hakdama to the Mappah in which he needed to counteract 
the proclivity to make "the karo as if from Sinai".  Apparently the 
tendency to "worship" a single Poseik was tempting in his time, too}

[Email #2. -mi]

From: Marty Bluke <marty.bluke@gmail.com>
>  Here is a quote from R' Dr. Haym Soloveitchik in his famous essay
...
>> ... In light of my remarks above, I should take care to add that though
>> the GRA is noticeably absent as an authority in the Arukh ha-Shulhan, that
>> work is written in the spirit of the GRA, whereas the Mishnah Berurah,
>> for all its deference to the GRA, is penned in a spirit antithetical
>> to the one of the Gaon. The crux of the Gaon's approach both to Torah
>> study and pesak was its independence of precedent....
>>                                                 further embodied in the
>> Hayyei Adam and the Arukh ha-Shulhan, and has continued on to our day
>> in the works of such Lithuanian posekim, as the Hazon Ish and R. Mosheh
>> Feinstein. The Mishnah Berurah rejects de facto this approach and returns
>> to the world of precedent and string citation....

I'm not clear on the Chayei Adam's methodology but re: the GRA - It 
appears to me that he did not promote minhaggim attributed to the Gra 
as mainstream Halacha as far as I can tell.

[Email #3. -mi]

From: Phyllostac@aol.com
> Additionally, the Chofetz Chaim outlived the Aruch Hashulchan by
> circa 25 years, years in which alot of the old Eastern European order
> changed. In those years his reputation and influence grew, due in part to
> his involvement in communal affairs, and he became a zokein hador. That
> helped spread his influence, and the influence of his seforim as well.

That becomes the point of contention. let's say for the ake of Arguement
that we all agree 100% taht the Chofetz Chaim was both a more saintly
and beloved figure. That does not necessarily imply that his SEFER
is superior! You could even argue that his psak IS supreior due to
his saintliness, but that does not necessarily imply that his lamdus is
superio st least in terms of getting more iyyun out of the AhS. IOW even
if the MB's conslusiosn are indeed better, learning that sefer will
probaly teach you less Machanics of Halachic analysis than does the AhS.

Think aobut it. Even if Rashi wre 100% correct in every disopute with
Tosafos, you will never grow in learning and havanah if you just learn
Shas with Rashi staright without doing Tosafos - or something similar.

Those Litvaks who did prefer AhS might have done soe for this very reason,
he teaches you to think more like a poseik.

There are times when I read a teshuva and I am not convinced of the
ruling, but I still like the way it analyzes the sources.


Kol Tuv
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 10:37:07PM -0400, rabbirichwolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: MB was in greater favor with mussar yeshivos. 'nuff said on that..

Name examples. This doesn't correlate with my experience. I find the MB
is more popular where Brisker derekh is. Including all those American
yeshivos founded by talmidei Slabodka that are not themselves remotely
Yeshivos Mussar.

(And both followed the same trajectory to dominance.)

-mi

From: Shaya Potter <spotter@yucs.org>
>> An interesting issue here is the power to Assur things. Rav Ovadia,
>> in other psika, Rav Kook in this article and Rav Feinstein, in this
>> article all discuss this issue with regard to the fact that we are NOT
>> allowed to add Issurrim. Interesting.

> RHS also mentioned the same thing to me. He quoted it in the name of
> someone else (i.e. Pri Migadim/Maagen Avraham type) who I can't recall
> at the moment.

how come bicycles are prohibited on Shabbas?  Yom Tov? is that not 
adding issurim, too?

Kol Tuv
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

From: Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com>
>> First he notes that R' Moshe states that kitnios is only those items that

> FWIW, the Minhag resumed nevertheless.
> There are some Aharonim that paskened that when eating Qitniyos you are
> violating the Lav of Lo Sosur.

FWIW Chayei Adam iirc states that eating Qitniyos violates "al titisoh
toras imecha". That makes a LOT more sense than does lo sasur

[Email #2. -mi]

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Minhag is currently in an odd state.
> Historically, the dominant factor was minhag hamaqom. We now have
> interleaved qehillos, no single practice per maqom. One is supposed to
> abandon minhag avos, shelo ya'asu agudos agudos. (To use an expression
> frequently associated with tefillin on cho"l.) With no one to assert
> what that norm is, minhag avos currently dominates -- but historically
> this is pretty atypical.

FWIW There are 2 sugyos in Shas re: RAbbi Yochan and Al titosh toras
imecha.
The one in Chullin deals with minhag hamakom and the one in Pesachim
deals with Minhag Avos.
IIRC the Pesachim adds Shma bni mussar avicha to the al titosh toras
imecha

Minhag avos is related to Al Titosh
Minhag hamakom is al tisoh imecha al tikra Imecha ella Amecha...

I agree with Micha re: minhag Hamakom nowadays, it's really tough to do
this iin a transplanted society. Few communities are homogeneous.

But there ARE communities that make declarations:
in Breuers they declared themselves as Minhag Frankfurt
In some shuls they declare they are minhg haGRA or Minhag RYBS etc.

If you look at Artscroll Siddurim, espeically early ones, the text is
almost always minhag Rema - not necessarily the halachos or instructions.
It seems to me absent any strong declaration to the contrary, Ashkenazim
would naturally default to the Minhag of the Rema unless it is a minhag
or psak that was clearly rejected early on.

Kol Tuv
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

From: Rich, Joel <JRich@Segalco.com>
> IIRC the Taz was much younger than the Shach but they published within the
> same year.
...
> I would have thought that each issue would be decided based on the force
> of their logic which iirc is often very clear in Y"D (in other words
> they just don't say kosher/treif)

Shach was born after TAz and died Before

{note too that Rema was born after R Y Karo and died before}

Shach and Taz on YD were written concurrently, Shach wrote Nekuddos
haKkesef AFTER he saw Taz

AISI Halacha is usually like Shach because that is what has been the
general conensus.

I think The Shach is usually more persuasive than the Taz, and that may
be why he became more accepted.

I also think it is an ovesimplification to assume that we ALWAYS pasken
like the Shach over the Taz, iirc there are exceptoins

Kol Tuv
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

I haven't been following this thread, but I would like to share that R'
Refoel Shmuelevitz once told me that Rav Zevin told him that Rabbonim
(he himself among them) preferred the AhS, because he was a Rav himself,
and that the MB was preferred by the yeshivos.

[Personal note torn off and sent to Areivim. -mi]

YGB

RMB wrote:
> You assume that besusim ubefradim he could make it in less than 15 mil
> of time, despite it being more than 15 mil of distance. And then the
> gemara would be explicitly ruling out our case. Which makes sense at
> first glance, until I looked at the names.

> Ula tells us two things on the pervious amud (93b): Modiin is 15 mil away,
> and derekh rekhokah means "too far to get to the azarah by sunset". A
> time measure. So, I'm lost as to what's going on here. Modiin seems
> to be a time measure, in which case wouldn't we get there in time for
> sheqi'ah is we left Modi'in -- which is 15 mil [space] away -- by horse?

It is confusing, but is nicely explained in IIRC a Meorot Daf haYomi
sheet (but the archives are not publicly available, I believe. 'Aliyah
leregel is connected to regel, to walking. In fact, ideally, we should
fulfil this mitzvah on foot, by finishing the trip walking. 'Ulla holds
that the determining factor is a distance covered by the preferred mode
of transportation: tram 11 (the legs).

Regards,
Arie Folger

On Tue, 2 May 2006 08:53:10 +0200, "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
>according to an article in todays JP Israel is the country with the 
>most Jews passing the US. According to present guesses within 20-30 
>years the majority of the Jews in the world will live in Israel. In 
>a truly halachik world that would seem to have many implications. 
>However, I am sure politics will prevent any of that.

And when you take into account the fact that these statistics include
"Jews" by patrilineal descent and "Jews" by quickie conversion she'lo
k'halakha, the majority of the Jews in the world probably already live
in Eretz Yisrael.

So... should we make a list of dinim that are different because of it?
We could probably start with prosbul going away, no?

Lisa

On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 12:47:30PM -0700, velvel gurkow wrote:
: Doesnt that mean that they were in the Midbar for 41 years total?
: 1 year, then travel, then 40 years of punishement, =41

Actually, it would seem from peshat in the pesuqim that for most of the
time in the midbar, BY were in EY. See Bamidbar 13:25, 20:1 and Devarim
1:2 about the length of time we speant in Qadeish Barneia.

The southern gevul runs BELOW QB, see Bamidbar 34:4.

Ah, but what about Moshe's punishment not to enter EY?

I first thought to be medayeiq in the lashon in Bamidbar 20:12 that the
onesh was "lo sovi'u es haqahal". Not that he Moshe and Aharon wouldn't
enter, but that they wouldn't lead BY into it. But that doesn't fit
Devarim 3:5, whereMoshe asks "e'berah na ve'er'eh", nothing to do with
leading, and HQBH denies the request.

One teirutz could be suggesting that ther QB of the gevul was a different
place than the one of dor hamidbar.

Another might be that there are no qiddush ha'aretz, no mitzvos hateluyos
ba'aretz to fulfil. Moshe wasn't in EY, but in Kenaan. However, had
MRA"H had the opportunity to enter WITH (or after) us...

Third possibility: This onesh is declared shortly after QB (Bam' 20:12).
Perhaps Hashem was saying that he wouldn't enter it from that time onward.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 20th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   play in maintaining relationships?

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


[ 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         ]