Avodah Mailing List

Volume 18: Number 1

Sunday, August 27, 2006

• 1. Lo Tasur (Chana Luntz)
• 2. Rikud (Chana Luntz)
• 3. 13 Middot (Arie Folger)

RJR writes: 
> We're all familiar with Rashi's statement that even if they 
> tell you that right is left you have to listen. AIUI the 
> supercommentaries understand Rashi to mean this literally, 
> i.e. that the psak of Bet Din establishes halachik reality 
> for all.  Has anyone seen a reconciliation of this position 
> with the mishneh in Horiyot which states that a member of bet 
> din or talmid raui lhoraah can not rely on bet din and if he 
> acts on bet din's psak, knowing it's wrong, he's chayav 
> (according to rashi of misunderstanding the meaning of lshmoa 
> dvrei chachamim)
> 

Don't know if this helps (and I haven't seen it inside as I do not have
a copy of the relevant sfarim quoted by the Sde Chemed), but the Sde
Chemed in Mareches Lamed clal 6 (chelek 3 p266) [which is on the mitzva
of lo taasur] quotes the Chida in Sefer Pesach Anayim in his chiddushim
to Rosh Hashana daf 25a in relation to the matter of Rabbi Yehoshua with
Rabbanan Gamliel that davka this is in a matter on which there is to him
katzas safek but if he knows vadai without any safek that the judge has
made a mistake he should not do as per his words - and the Sde Chemed
continues that his words are brought by HaRav Taharas Hamayim in this
marecha at ois 11 and he writes shehem d'varim peshutim b'reish Horiyos

> KT
> Joel Rich

Regards

Chana 

RMT wrote:

> <Just pointing out that the simple understanding of the Misha in 
> Taanis 4:8 is that the women used to *dance* in the vineyards, and 
> that the men would see them dance (as the women were saying "bachur 
> sa na einecha" while dancing).  Today, we seem to assume that men are 
> not supposed to see women dancing because we say that it's not 
> tzniusdik.>
> 
>      It doesn't say "rokdos," it says "cholos," which I believe means 
> going around in a circle, a la the yeshivishe two-step, not any fancy 
> steps, which might indeed be considered as calling too much attention 
> to physicality, and hence could be considered not tzniusdig.  It is 
> this distinction which is given as a heter for yeshiva-type dancing 
> at simchas on Shabbos, as not being a violation of ein m'rakdin.

I was having a discussion about this with somebody off line on
mail-jewish.

As far as I can see, this idea that modern dancing (ie the yeshiva
shuffle) is not the same as the dancing that they did at the time of the
gemora is a chiddush of the Aruch Hashulchan (to explain, as you say,
why it is that we allow people to dance today on shabbas when there is a
specific gezera against it, brought down in the Shulchan Aruch, the
Aruch Hashulchan being uncomfortable with the Rema's limud zchus, based
on Tosphos, that is it because most people aren't familiar with fixing
instruments today, and hence the reason for the gezera no longer
applies).  He says that modern dancing is not the kind of dancing they
did at the time, which was more like "rikkudei nashim". And it was only
against the latter that the gezera was made.  

Are you aware of anywhere else this distinction is made?

But surely if you are relying on the distinction brought by the Aruch
Hashulchan, would not that in fact allow the watching by men of women
dancing today?  Because he says that modern dancing is not real dancing
as per the gemora, but something lesser than that - something that would
not cause people to be tempted to fix instruments.   But the dancing
done at weddings these days (by men or women) is no different to that
done on shabbas, so if it is permitted on shabbas, then, according to
your logic, does this not make it tzniusdik enough for men to watch at
weddings? 
 
> EMT

Regards

Chana

There exists a ma'hloqet rishonim about how to count the 13 Attributes of 
Divine Retribution (more correct nomenclature that ... Mercy, since it 
includes Din, as well). Rashi's scheme, mentioned also by Rabbenu Tam and 
Rabbi Eli'ezer Rokeach is well known, the other one comes from Rabbenu Nissim 
and, apparently, Rambam. Both opinions are recorded by Tos. Rosh haShanah 
17b.

The essential differences between the two schemes is whether to count "HaShem 
Hashem E-l" as one (RN) or three attributes (Rashi, RT) and whether to 
count "lo yenakeh (lesheeinam shavim)" as part of the 13 (RN).

However, all machzorim and siddurim that show Tashlikh with corresponding 13 
attributes count them according to a 3rd scheme. That one starts like Rabbenu 
Nissim, but instead of counting nakeh twice and also including "lo yenakeh", 
it divides erekh apayim and notzer chessed laalafim into two attributes each. 
This scheme is attributed to the Ari (so say Rebbe Scroll, and indeed, that 
is the way a highly Ari-Kabbalistically acquaintance of mine teaches the 13 
Middot), though I have no source to study this.

1) Can anyone explain the logic behind splitting erekh apayim and notzer 
chessed laalafim, respectively?
2) Why is it, that the Ari's scheme particularly caught on for Tashlikh, even 
as the same ma'hzorim will use Rashi & RT's scheme for seli'hot?
3) Where is the Ari's scheme first recorded (I assume in 'Etz 'Hayim)?
4) Can anyone mail me a reference, or if possible, a scan/excerpt from etext?

Yasher koach,

Arie Folger


------------------------------


avodah mailing list
avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of avodah Digest, Vol 18, Issue 1
************************************
Send avodah mailing list submissions to
	avo...@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-requ...@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-ow...@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of avodah digest..."