Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 098

Wednesday, July 26 2006

• Re: historical contingency and brachos
• Re: Eli Tziyon tune
• Different Types of Jews
• tefillat hamedinah
• Re: Eid Echad Ne'eman B'Issurin
• Re: historical contingency and brachos
• Re: Eid Echad Ne'eman B'Issurin
• Re: me'ein hachasima
• Re: Halachah k'Mishna Brura
• Re: MB/Yeshiva Communities
• Re: How do Achronim become Rishonim?
• Re: How do Achronim become Rishonim?
• music
• Re: historical contingency and brachos

Gershon Dubin wrote:
>> If one takes a sip (less than a revi'it) of wine at kiddush, and then
>> drinks other liquids, the hagafen of the wine covers all the other
>> drinks,but the beracha acharona is borei nefashot, not al hagafen.

> Most poskim hold that yayin poter kol minei mashkeh means at least a
> reviis, perhaps even to kevius al hayayin.

For example?  Who holds this?

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

From: Minden <phminden@arcor.de>
> I posted a link to a recording of the Western tradition on my blog:
> <http://lipmans.blogspot.com>.

> Maybe we're talking about different tunes, but I don't find this tune
> in three four time particularly march-like.

Ah. What I've generally heard in the US has been the first verse tune,
repeated over and over, somewhat faster than you sing it. So it comes
over as more 4/4 with each crotchet divided in three, for more or less
12/8 time. Say, 48 beats/minute.

 --
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

I think that this is a very important article. I also think that the
development of the idea warrants reading the whole article, and not just
a summary.

Shoshana L. Boublil

Different Types of Jews - by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, Head of Yeshivat Ateret
Yerushalayim - 24/07/2006

Our sages have taught us: "If Yisrael would keep Shabbat twice, they
would be redeemed immediately" [Shabbat 118b]. One might well ask:
Shabbat is certainly very important, but is this sufficient? One might
answer this question as follows: If we observe Shabbat we will absorb
its sanctity, so that we will rise to greater heights in other areas,
and we will then be privileged to be redeemed.

Similarly, it is written, "Anyone who observes Shabbat in all its detail,
eve if he also worships idols, will be forgiven" [ibid]. How can observing
Shabbat atone for the much more serious sin of idol worship? The Beit
Yosef gives the following answer: Since the sinner has become attached
to Shabbat, which teaches one about individual heavenly guidance,
creation of the world, and that the Torah stems from a divine source,
there is hope that he will repent (Tur Orach Chaim 242).

Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitevsk, one of the leaders of Jewish settlement
in Eretz Yisrael and a disciple of the Baal Shem Tov, explained this in
a different way. The declaration about redemption does not refer to two
random cases of Shabbat but rather to two specific dates in the year,
Shabbat Chazon (before Tisha B'Av) and Shabbat Nachamu (the week after
the fast). There are Jews of the "Chazon" type, who preach to observe
the Torah and the mitzvot out of a fear of G-d and dedication, based on
the approach of the prophet Yeshayahu. These are the Chareidi Jews. There
are other Jews of the "Nachamu" ty e who preach for rebuilding the land,
for the return to Zion, and for renewal of the life of the nation in
the land. These are the Zionist Jews. Both types of Jews are important,
both are loved by G-d, both types are in fact vital. But one group alone
will not bring the redemption, only both together can accomplish this.

Unfortunately, when these two groups met at the start of the return to
Zion, they were strangers to each other. Sometimes apathy can be worse
than hostility, which at least defines some kind of relationship. But
the truth is that this approach is wrong. We need men of weapons and
men of commerce, and not less important, men of the spirit and men of
faith. The main thing is that there must be cooperation between them,
with mutual appreciation and mutual love.

"I was created (to be involved in Torah) and my colleague was created
(to be involved in agriculture), my work is in the city and his work is in
the fields, I rise early to do my labor and he rises early to do his labor
(t at is, we are both dedicated and diligent). Just as he does not become
involved in my labors (he does not give advice about my affairs and does
not despise my labor), so I do not become involved in his (there is mutual
respect, each one doing that for which he is most suited). Perhaps you
would say: I accomplish so much and he does so little (we may be equal,
but some are "more equal" than others). But we have been taught, one may
do more and another may do less, but what is important is to have heavenly
intentions (the result depends mostly on dedication and the utilization
of powers of the soul)." [Berachot 17a]. Everything is important, every
man must be in his proper position, with the proper banner.

However, in addition to the great labor of building a bridge of trust
between the two camps, a new community is slowly being created that
includes within it faithfulness both to Torah and sanctity and also to the
renewal of the nation in its land. Certainly, the labor has not ended,
but it is progres ing in a good direction. The combined strengthening
of the two concepts, Shabbat Chazon and Shabbat Nachamu, is what will
lead to the redemption. We are on the right path, and we must gather our
strength with respect to three elements: Shabbat Chazon, Shabbat Nachamu,
and the link between the two.

On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 02:14:32PM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
: Did Rav Soloveitchik hold the same regarding the Tefillah LaMedinah?

[Micha:]
> Yes.

Similarly RYBS objected to the special prayers said on Yom Haatazmaut
even though they are a compilation of prayers said on other days (I am
not talking about the Hallel issue). As ponited out RYBS attitude to
prayer in general was much different than others and I find not accepted
by most of his talmidim.

RYBS has many articles/speeches on tefillah with a great emphasis that on
the concept that we need a matir to daven to hashem. He views tefillah as
being more for ourselves and less a right to petition hashem for requests.
RAL points out that later in life RYBS softened his views as he and
his wife went through their medical problems. Though very innovative I
don't think his views on tefillah even after the softeneing were widely
accepted.

> And, BTW, to those students who insisted on saying it or didn't want
> to start a battle with mispallelim over it, RYBS suggested they insert
> the word "shetehei", as in "bareikh es Medinas Yisrael shetehei reishis
> tzemichas ge'ulaseinu". ..       RYBS had very strong problems, beyond
> those he had with other tefillos, with what sounds like a prophetic
> proclamation about the fate of the state.

Anyone know what the say in the Gush yeshiva, Har Etzion under RAL?

kol tuv
 -- 
Eli Turkel

R. Zvi Lampel stated:
>In Europe, I am told, this whole idea of having a Rav hamachshir and
>mashgiach was unheard of. At least it was not widespread. Today as well,
>just as we (or some of us....) trust our friends' kashrus, we can trust
>establishments owned and operated by Torah-observant people who know
>what they need to know about producing kosher food.

See the Aruch haShulchan YD 119 #9 on someone you don't know re: ne'emanut
who sells food: "meyvi imo ktav hechsher mei'rav ha'yoshev al kisei
ha'hora'ah u'b'yichud bizman hazeh [THAT WAS 120 YEARS AGO!!] ... assur
la'kachat mei'adam she'ein makirin oto b'lo ktav hechsher.

KT
Josh

Several posters have argued against my example (of 3/4 of a kezayis
grapes and 1/4 kezayis of pineapple), by citing the example of how wine
covers all other drinks (according to some) even when drinking less than a
revi'is, (according to some) even when drinking less than a m'lo lugmav,
and maybe (according to some) even when not drinking any wine at all
but merely hearing Kiddush from someone else.

I repeat and stand by what I wrote earlier: There are two totally
unrelated topics which are too easily confused. The first is ikar/tafel,
in the sense that making a bracha on the ikar also covers the tafel. The
second is how to measure the shiur for bracha acharona. It is an easy
trap to confuse these issues, but they really have nothing to do with
each other.

Please see the Shaar HaTziyun 208:70, which says:

"Even though regarding a bracha rishona it is possible that the other
drinks will be covered even if he only drank a m'lo lugmav of the wine,
as I wrote there [174:2 - Akiva] in the Beur Halacha, but regarding
the bracha acharona, to exempt the other drinks from their bracha
"lo yetzuyar" is inconceivable unless he drank a reviis of wine, for
which all opinions require a bracha. If he drank less than this amount,
"yesh l'ayen b'davar" you have to look into what to do for the bracha
acharona. Because for drinks there are opinions which hold that even
for a rov reviis (and maybe even a kezayis, as in Siman 210) you have
to say Al Hagefen, which means you can't say Boray Nefashos for the
other drinks. And since we don't know how to resolve this halacha,
you'll end up obligated to say Boray Nefashos. "V'tzarich iyun" - but
it needs more investigation."

Summary: Whatever the shiur is for saying Al Hagefen on wine, you have
to drink that much wine in order to say the Al Hagefen, and the other
drinks do not count towards that shiur. --- Exactly like what Rav Moshe
Feinstein said about bread and food.

(In researching this post, I acknowledge the help from R' Ari Zivotofsky,
whose post on this topic pointed me to the excellent Mareh M'komos in
his Jewish Action article, and also to Mishna Berura 174:4 for pointing
me to this Shaar HaTziyun.)

Akiva Miller

R' Zvi Lampel wrote:
> Eid Echad Ne'eman B'Issurin applies even to a
> frum restaurant owner-operator testifying about
> the restaurant. The fact it is his parnassa
> does not ruin the ne'emonus.

The Aruch Hashulchan disagrees, and says that though he has neemanus
regarding what he personally eats in his home, he does *not* have neemanus
for what he sells in his store. (Hmmm, I remember clearly that the AH held
this way for fleishigs, I don't remember if he spoke about non-fleishigs.)

I thank R' Josh Backon for his post at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol09/v09n069.shtml#01>
where he wrote:
> See the Aruch Hashulchan YD 119 #3, # 9, and #11 on
> the definition of who/what is "muchzak b'kashrut".

Akiva Miller

From: micha@aishdas.org
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 01:19:59AM -0400, rabbirichwolpoe@aol.com wrote:
>: I have about 3-4 hyptheses the common denominator is clear that:
>: 1) the ancient nusach was oseh hashlaom NOT hamevareich

> Both exist in old nusachos. This is an example of compromise in pesaq.

R. Seth Mandel, Elbogen and the Geniza support Oseh Hashalom as the
original Nusach.

There was a compromise by Ashkenaz re: Sim Shalom adn Shalom Rav but I
do not know this is true of the Chasima.

What does seemto be a pattern is that many chasimos from piyyutim preserve
an older and untampered with tradition
 Oseh Shalom is one
 Biglal Avos Toshia Banim is another in Brach Dod.

IT seems that the regular Nsuach was fiddeled with more than the
"speical" nusach of yamim Tovin et.c and therefore the old Chasimos were
preserved. Had the anti-piyyut party succeeded inwiping out piyytim then
we would have lost thes ancient original Chasimos. But the RBSO kept them
alive by inspiring the Pro-piyyut party to stubbornly and steadfastly
preserved the Anitquarian value of these anicent nusachos.

Kol Tuv
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com   

From: micha@aishdas.org
>  On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 04:59:03PM -0400, rabbirichwolpoe@aol.com wrote:
>: H asnwered -ein hachi name - see the Hakdama of the MB himself, that he
>: wrote the sefer davkabecassue Tur/BY was being negelected...

> The haqdamah says that he wrote a survey of those poseqim that post-date
> the standardized page of SA, and therefore people may not be aware of
> these later developments of the din.

Micha quote reason #2 {sibba shniyya}

I quoted reason #1 which is directly in the previous paragraph to
#2. Ayein sham paragraph begins "Achas ki Hashulchan Aruch...."

Kol Tuv
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com   

R' Arie Folger wrote:
> The text of our core prayers were in slight flux for much longer
> than we think. Just compare Rokeach to Siddur Rav Sa'adayah Gaon
> & Rav 'Amram Gaon, Siddur of Rambam, Things coming from Rashi's
> circle, etc., and you will see that immediately. Thus, the fixed
> text came centuries after the core parts of the 'Amidah were
> composed. Piyyutim are thus no fundamental modifications of the
> 'Amidah (BTW, we should also add "and of the birkat qeriat
> shema'"), but beautifications...

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
> All you've shown is that at certain points in time, we did not have a
> specific text.
> What you *want* to show is that the Anshei Kneses Hagedola did not
> produce a specific text.

> In my view, the evidence you've brought could be used just as easily
> to show that the Anshei Kneses Hagedola DID produce a specific text,
> but that different communities over the centuries made changes to it,
> either through forgetfulness or deliberately.

It is clear that the nusach of the losing bracha on Maggid was in flxux
in the time of Rabbi Akiva.

And this was not a matter of "forgetting." RAbbi Akiva is making a
bakasha that would have been impossible

in the time of the beis hamkdash and he was arugin for a bracha Aruka
over a bracha k'tzara.

Anshei knesses hagdola did not have v'sechezeinu talking about a return
to Tziyyon until after 70.

It is very clear that the nusach of havdala was in flux at the time of
Abayyei and Rava see Arvei Pesachim

If you read any critical analysi of the Siddru you will find that at
most Anshei Knesses Hagdola gave a fixed outline but not the fixed
details.

[Email #2. -mi]

From: mgluck@gmail.com
> RRW:
>> But let's face facts. Every and ANY piyyut in the service that has an
>> alpphabetci acrostic is by definition post Talmudic.

> Why does an alphabetical acrostic denote post-Talmudic authorship? Think
> Eshes Chayil and L'dovid B'shanoso.

Good point but different formats.

> [Eichah and Ashrei leap to mind too. -mi]

Ashrei is NOT in aplhabetic order however TEhilla l'david is namely
Psalm 145.
Ashrei is NOT part of any acrostic.

The Tashrak of Tiknta and the Alephbet of Keil Baruch are by WORDS not
by phrases!

AS far a Keil Adon goes, it is symmterical meter, not quite ture of the
albphabetic poems of Nach..

NOte:  I am only paraphrasing sources.  

From: micha@aishdas.org
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 05:56:41pm -0400, rabbirichwolpoe@aol.com wrote:
>: I am guessing that Rabbinates rallied aroundthe Bavli opposition to
>: the Karaites.

> Except that we were rallied around the geonim of the same yeshivos since
> before the Qaraim. I think we rallied around the Bavli because it had
> generations of peer review, and because we were scattered to the four
> corners and needed it. There was no way the RBSO would scatter us to
> multiple communities and not give us the tools to carry the halachic
> process on.

You answered how the Bavli got popular as a text. It does NOT explain
its primacy in Halacha as opposed to say the MIshna or the Tosefta.

FWIW, Ta Shma quotes an Or Zarua that concedes that Minhag Ashkenaz will
often follow other texts in preference to the Bavli, e.g. Pesikta.

Also FWIW Rashba quotes an Avos derabbi Nassan in a Teshuva to treat
glass as "shia" smooth re: hag'ala,
despite 1 passage in Bavli Shabbos that equates glass to Cheress,
and 1 in Avoda Zoro that equates glass to metal.

Kol Tuv
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com     

From: masliah@gmail.com
>  R. Rich Wolpoe
>>I am not sure HOW the Bavli got to be so per-eminent.

> There is a history there. It involved the decline of the EY community
> under Byzantine persecution, which is why the Yerushalmi was virtually a
> 'rush job,' lacking much of the stamma de-gemara which glues the Bavli
> text together. At the same time that the EY community and its influence
> was declining, the Bavli community and its influence begun to expand. In
> addition, there were actual campaigns by certain figures (Pirkoi ben
> Baboi comes to mind) to spread the Bavli to different communities. We
> have extant letters from him.

So is the reaon histoircal or sociological? Did the Gaonim promote the
Bavli over other texts?

Is that how it came to becoem pre-eminent? 

> By the time it *was* preeminent the rishonim viewed its preeminence as
> right due to halakha ke-batroi, reasoning that the latter (i.e. Bavli)
> authorities were familiar with the positions of the Yerushalmi and afilu
> hachi disagreed where they did, so their opinions would rightly be more
> authoritative. SW

Sephardic Rishonim and Ashekeazic Rishonim haver 2 diverse models
of Basroi!

EG, R Y Caro paskened like Rif/Rambam/Rosh while Rema demanded factoring
in Acharonim like Maharil, Trumas Hadeshen, etc.

I agree that the Yerushalmi was poorly redacted. Nevertheless,there is
little evidence that the Bavli ever saw a Yerushalmi. Plus only Gaonim
from about 800+ knew of the Yerushalmi.

And at one time, Rabbenu Chann'el pretty much treated the Yerushalmi as
on par with the Bavli - at least in isolated cases.

My understanding is a bit different.

Rambam took the Bavli as numero Uno but also included Tosefta, Sifra
Sifrei and TY in the mix.

For many Ashkenazim the mix was MUCH broader. Ashkenazim included
Midrashim {e.g. Midrash Rabba} Pesikta etc. as well, albeit these texts
rarely had the same authority as the Bavli.

But there are some cases where halachos are derived "outside the box".

All this does not explain how the Bavli got the tag of "talmud didan"
etc. by Rishonim who never ventured forth into Iraq. What makes it
Didan? - Unless one is a Talmid of one of the Gaonic era Yeshivos
in Bavel.

There is a kind of mystical sentiment attached to the Bavli above and
beyond other components of the TSBP which mystifies me. I am guessing
that that kind of devotion is a reaction to a perceived attack.

-RRW

> He considers a recording of such sound to have been produced by
> an instrument and therefore to be instrumental music. The logic is good,
> IMO, but yuo can argue on other grounds.

Yes, the logic is good. However, it seems to depend upon the frame of
reference. In other words, it is logical if you are looking for a reason
to prohibit such music. It seems like the approach of someone who looks
to find the issur in something. But if one's approach is to find what
the tradition is/was regarding the issur/minhag of music during the 3
weeks, it doesn't seem like the logical conclusion. So the question is,
what should be our goal?

Should it be to look for ways to assur music lest we inadvertantly
transgress this issue, and to create a siyug for this issur/minhag?

cbk 

[RAM wanted this appended to his previous email, but I approved the
other before it arrived.

Here's some context:
> Please see the Shaar HaTziyun 208:70, which says:
> "Even though regarding a bracha rishona it is possible that the other
> drinks will be covered even if he only drank a m'lo lugmav of the wine,
> as I wrote there [174:2 - Akiva] in the Beur Halacha, but regarding
> the bracha acharona, to exempt the other drinks from their bracha
> "lo yetzuyar" is inconceivable unless he drank a reviis of wine, for
> which all opinions require a bracha. If he drank less than this amount,
> "yesh l'ayen b'davar" you have to look into what to do for the bracha
> acharona. Because for drinks there are opinions which hold that even
> for a rov reviis (and maybe even a kezayis, as in Siman 210) you have
> to say Al Hagefen, which means you can't say Boray Nefashos for the
> other drinks. And since we don't know how to resolve this halacha,
> you'll end up obligated to say Boray Nefashos. "V'tzarich iyun"...
-mi]

This comparison leads me to wonder: I suppose it is possible that while
the Mishneh Brurah and Igros Moshe agree regarding Bracha Acharona
(that the Al Hagefen and Birkas Hamazon can be said only if one had a
full shiur of the wine/bread disregarding other drinks/foods) they might
not agree regarding Bracha Rishona.

It is clear from the Shaar HaTziyun I quoted, that a m'lo lugmav of wine
is *not* enough for Al Hagefen, yet he agrees that this is enough to
cover the other drinks without a shehakol. If so, I wonder if he would
hold that a grogeres of bread, which is a significant amount but not
enough for Birkas Hamazon, is also enough to cover other foods without
a bracha rishona.

Similarly, Rav Moshe (OC 4:41) holds that if one eats less than a kezayis
of bread, he needs to say bracha rishona on all the other food. If wonder
if he would disagree with the Shaar Hatziyun, and say that if one drinks
more than a m'lo lugmav of wine, but less than enough to say Al Hagefen,
maybe he'll hold that it does *not* cover other drinks.

Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]