Avodah Mailing List

Volume 20: Number 20

Mon, 23 Oct 2006

• 1. Havdalah (Cantor Wolberg)
• 2. Definition of a Mamzer (Yaakov Ellis)
• 3. Re: Ushpizin and Sheva Brachos (saul mashbaum)
• 4. Re: What is the source for the minhag of Chasidim to have HaKafos on Shmini Atzeres night? (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: What is the source for the minhag of Chasidim to have HaKafos on Shmini Atzeres night? (Chaim G Steinmetz)
• 6. Leaving Women Behind (Yisrael Medad)
• 7. Gra and importance of Rishonim (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: Definition of a Mamzer (Harry Maryles)
• 9. Re: Knowledge of Good and Bad (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 10. Re: What is the source for the minhag of Chasidim tohave HaK afos on Shmini Atzeres night? (MPoppers@kayescholer.com)
• 11. Re: Uman/Leaving the women behind (MPoppers@kayescholer.com)

Someone wrote:
"Don't you know that if a woman makes havdalah, she will grow a  moustache?  
(BTW if anyone knows the source of that belief, please let me  know!)"


It is strictly a superstition and it's not if she makes havdalah, it's if she drinks the grape juice (or wine) she will grow a moustache. But it is utterly ridiculous.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061022/0daab121/attachment-0001.htm

The Jerusalem Post just posted this story: Mother insists on proving her son
is a 'mamzer' (http://tinyurl.com/y49end). After separating from her husband
but before receiving a get, a woman had a child with another man. Misrad
haPnim automatically put the name of her former husband (to whom she was
married at the time) as the father. She is suing to get the name of the
father changed to the name of the man she claims is the real father.

From the article:

"From a Jewish standpoint, Moshe's mother should leave his kosher status the
way it is, said Rabbi Moshe Rauchverger, a senior member of the Chief
Rabbinate's Governing Council and a marriage registrar in the Haifa area.

"What does the mother gain from her stubbornness?" he asked. "Does she want
her son to be a *mamzer*?"

[snip]

In Moshe's case, Halacha assumes that Moshe is not a *mamzer* unless
contrary evidence proves otherwise. A woman's legal husband is assumed to be
the father of all of her children until she is divorced. Even when there is
suspicion of infidelity, according to Halacha: "The majority of sexual acts
take place with the legal husband."

Moshe's mother did not receive her *get* from her first husband until she
was eight months pregnant, although they had separated long before. When
Moshe was born she had not yet married Moshe's biological father. The
Interior Ministry clerk who registered Moshe's birth automatically assumed,
in accordance with Halacha, that Moshe's mother's first husband was the
father.

Now Moshe's mother plans to go to court to prove the truth.

Is this for real? The mother is claiming that she had no actual contact with
the man who was her halachic husband at the time of conception. There might
be a chazaka that "the majority of sexual acts take place with the legal
husband", but in this case, we have the direct testimony of the woman that
this is not so. Does the name printed on the birth certificate actually have
significance in this case in determining whether or not the child is a
mamzer?

Yaakov Ellis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061023/7f43148f/attachment.html

I wrote on Avodah that according to the order of ushpizin which puts Moshe 4th and Aharon 5th, their "days" always fall out on the same day of the week as
their (previous) yahrzeit (7 Adar/ 1 Av).

In an off-list communication, an Avodah member said he heard a shiur in which it was claimed that "it [yahrzeit/day of ushpizin] applies to all seven ushpizin"
 
The writer said he did not know the details of this correspondence for the other ushpizin. 

I can add one more, which indeed confirms this claim:
The yahrzeit of David Hamelech is well known to be on Shavuot. And in fact, Shavuot (first day) always falls out on the seventh day of Succot, which is David's day. 

I would be interested if anyone can provide midrashic material on the yahrzeit of the other Ushpizin.

Saul Mashbaum

At 03:14 PM 10/22/2006, Chaim G Steinmetz wrote:
>
>This is flat out wrong. The hakofos he did was on YT. Look carefully 
>in the loshon that Yaari brings on page 266-67, and you will see 
>this clearly, that ST there is referring to SA. So is also clear in 
>SH Drush 9, where he writes why SA is called ST.
>
>CGS

On page 267 at the top Ya'ari says RCV reported that he saw his rebbe 
dance "b'lyle *Motzoei Yom Tov* Achar Maariv." It was then (on 
Motzoei Yom Tov) that he made the 7 HaKafos. This is not on SA, it is 
on Isru Chag in EY. True, the writer writes ST, but he is referring 
to what is ST in Chutz L'Aretz.  Furthermore, RCV writes that he did 
not see what the ARI did during the day.


Yitzchok Levine
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061023/a2bd0b37/attachment.htm

Prof. Levine <llevine@stevens.edu> writes:
On page 267 at the top Ya'ari says RCV reported that he saw his rebbe
dance "b'lyle *Motzoei Yom Tov* Achar Maariv." It was then (on Motzoei
Yom Tov) that he made the 7 HaKafos. This is not on SA, it is on Isru
Chag in EY. True, the writer writes ST, but he is referring to what is ST
in Chutz L'Aretz.  Furthermore, RCV writes that he did not see what the
ARI did during the day. 


Yitzchok Levine
WADR, you are quoting half of the SH. First, RCV writes that the minhog
to be makif "Shacharis, Mincha, and Motzei YT by Maariv is a true
minhog". Clear that hakofos - took place ON YT.
Then he writes that "I saw him dance etc Motzei YT after Maariv etc,
BESIDES (- in addition) to the complete hakofos of the day of ST (-
meaning SA)", however he writes that he was not actually there by day and
therefore "I did not see them".
There is however no question that they happened, and Yaari also
understands it thus.
I do not begin the see the issue here, and room for dispute.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061022/d8153a97/attachment.html

Following Chana's posting, let's not forget my local patriotism:

From I Kings 14
1At that time Abijah the son of Jeroboam fell sick. *2* And Jeroboam said to
his wife: 'Arise, I pray thee, and disguise thyself, that thou be not known
to be the wife of Jeroboam; and get thee to Shiloh; behold, there is Ahijah
the prophet, who spoke concerning me that I should be king over this people.
*3* And take with thee ten loaves, and biscuits, and a cruse of honey, and
go to him; he will tell thee what shall become of the child.' *4* And
Jeroboam's wife did so, and arose, and went to Shiloh, and came to the house
of Ahijah.

-- 
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
Mobile Post Efraim 44830
Israel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061023/bae44620/attachment-0001.htm

I find the statements of R. Meiselman that Daniel quotes strange.
He makes a deal that RYE Eibshutz wrote on Shulchan Aruch but not on shas.
But in fact the Gra did the very same!! as he is brought as the one
that changed the emphasis.
Certainly other achronim like the Pnei Yehoshua stressed the gemara.

As far as the Gra starting the emphasis on rishonim in fact it is
precisely the Gra who
is known as arguing with Rishonim though he argued with the Saagas
Aryeh for doing so. The idea of not arguing with Rishonim is much
older
though the definition of rishonim changes. So some early achronim (eg
Radvaz) say that one cannot argue with rishonim through the Rosh but
one can argue with later rishonim.
Even today CI and RMF would argue with a Meiri but not other rishonim.

One comment which I have never undertood is brought by RHS that R.
Karo is a rishon
but the Rema is an acharon.


-- 
Eli Turkel

--- Yaakov Ellis <yellis@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Jerusalem Post just posted this story: Mother insists on
> proving her son
> is a 'mamzer' 
> 
> ...Moshe's mother did not receive her *get* from her first husband
> until she
> was eight months pregnant, although they had separated long before.

> Now Moshe's mother plans to go to court to prove the truth.
> 
> Is this for real? The mother is claiming that she had no actual
> contact with
> the man who was her halachic husband at the time of conception.
> There might
> be a chazaka that "the majority of sexual acts take place with the
> legal
> husband", but in this case, we have the direct testimony of the
> woman that
> this is not so.

Interesting Shaila.

My quick answer is that we go to all lengths to prevent the so from
becoming a Mamzer. 1) Rov Bielos Achar HaBal. 2) Even though eid
echad neeman b'isrurim and a woman is beleived when she testifies
about Issurim, I do not think one can grant any ne-emanus to a woman
who would testify that her son is a Mamzer when it is clear that her
motivations are not religious but more in the realm of vendetta. But
even if she does have ne-emanus, my guess is that her Peh She-Asur
applies only to herself and not to others, incuding her son. It is
also very likely that she is not Shomer Shabbos and there is,
therefore, an automatic Psul in her Eidus.

But I don't think we even have to resort to this. We simply do not
believe her. There is precedent in Halacha for this. When a Cohen's
wife says she was raped, we do not tell her husband to divorce her
even though that is the Halacha in cases of rape. Many Poskim say
that we simply "do not believe her" and allow them to continue to be
married. I think there might be similar circumstanes here.

The only fly in the ointment is if she brings incontravertible proof,
such as DNA evidence. That might make things a bit sticky.

HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

R' David Riceman asked:
> How do you answer the Rambam's kasha: how
> could Adam and Hava benefit from sinning?

I'm not familiar with that kasha. (Could someone rephrase it, or 
point me to where he asks it?) But here's an attempted answer anyway:
  
The nachash explained, "Eat this, and you'll be like G-d!!!" To 
someone who does not understand right and wrong, but does understand 
benefit and loss, I'd think this would sound like a great idea. The 
nachash certainly expected Chava to see the benefit of being like G-
d. And the next pasuk testifies to other positive aspects which she 
saw in the fruit.

It is only we, who do understand the idea that disobeying G-d is 
*wrong*, who feel that the nachash's idea was stupid. But that was 
beyond Adam and Chava's comprehension. I think it would have sounded 
pretty reasonable to them.

Yes, they were certainly aware that HaShem told them not to eat it, 
but they couldn't fathom the idea that His command makes the act 
inherently *wrong*. They *were* aware that eating the fruit would 
have detrimental effects, specifically that it would cause their 
deaths, but the nachash convinced Chava that this was not true; or at 
least, he made her suspect that it *might* not be true.

So Chava weighed that sole possible loss against a number of 
anticipated benefits: it was a taavah for the eyes and nechmad 
l'haskil, and was even alleged to have the power to make people G-
dly. Wow! What a deal! Without a conscience to put HaShem's command 
in the proper perspective, it was too good an opportunity to pass up.

Seen in this light, I am almost surprised that Adam didn't jump at 
the opportunity as well. I suppose it testifies to the strong power 
of first-hand information (Adam from HaShem, Chava from the nachash) 
and the weak power of second-hand information (Adam from the nachash 
via Chava, Chava from Hashem via Adam).

Akiva Miller

In Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 16, RAM wrote:
> I was thus very surprised to read in R' Yitzchok Levine's post, of
Rav Schwab adding hakafos to Maariv of Simchas Torah in not one, but
two such shuls. I'm curious what his reasons were, and what the
shuls' reactions were. <
When I was a kid (RDrYBreuer was still alive but RSS was "in charge"),
"Breuer's" had 7 hakafos, but there was no dancing or delay in them;
dancing occurred elsewhere (across the street in the "social hall" and/or
in the Beis Medrash a few blocks down Bennett Avenue).  While I was in HS
(not sure, but I think this occurred already before RSS passed away), the
shul was persuaded to take out the first row of middle-section men's seats
to allow some room for dancing at the end of each hakafah.  Some of the
old-timers disapproved, while others appreciated the enhanced ruach.

In the next digest, RnTK replied:
> And the way Yekkes "dance" there is not all that big a change from not
having hakafos to having hakafos. At least that's how it was in the  Yekke
shul in
Joburg when I was there.  (I say this with all due  respect and affection
for
a community my father much  admired.) <
to which RELPhM replied:
> - Breuer's has kept more of the original minneg Ashkenez, but Frankfurt's
polonisation started in the 18th century at the latest, went on during the
19th, and today's KAJ is even less original, not least due to the
chareidisation, and also because of false assumptions like yours. Add to
the demand to be like other chareidists specific demands, which led to the
introduction of the Polish ritual of Yizkor, for example, because Holocaust
survivors wanted to bemoan their relatives in this way that they saw
elsewhere.
- Rav Schwab zetza"l was very strongly influenced by the Eastern yeshives
he went to as a youth. <
RELPhM is correct, but I would add that the hanhagah of "Breuer's" was
influenced by its younger generation of "Eastern yeshivos"-educated leaders
and their parents, who had sent their kids to those out-of-town Yeshivos;
by himself, I believe RSS would not have authorized the removal of that row
of seats for dancing during hakafos.  Parenthetically, I always remembered
and especially enjoyed seeing the dancing on the bimah which took place on
ST morning after leining -- it was rare to see the Chazan and two members
of the Synagogue Committee engaging in such activity!

Gut Chodesh and all the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061023/b2ed30ea/attachment.html

In Avodah Digest V3#17, RnCL wrote:
> The Rema writes in Orech Chaim siman 739
si'if 2 that it seems to him that the reason that these days we are
lenient regarding men sleeping in the sukkah is because the mitzvah of
sukkah is "ish v'beiso ish v'ishto k'derech she hu dor kol hashana - and
in a place where he is not able to sleep with his wife because the
sukkah isn't private enough he is patur.  Similarly therefore if a man
usually eats with his wife all year round, if she is asked to leave the
sukkah, and he cannot eat with her, is it not arguable that the mitzvah
of the husband has just disappeared? <
[OC 639, BTW, not 739.]  Under this argument, what should the husband do
when his wife leaves the sukkah of her own accord because of personal
discomfort? and would the answer be different if she had never entered the
sukkah because of personal discomfort?  If his mitzva doesn't disappear in
either or both of these situations, why should it disappear because she was
"asked to leave"?! and wouldn't it be more sensible to limit the RMA (as
seems pashut IMHO from his words) to situations where *he* can't be in the
sukkah, such that "baiso" goes where he goes (and see MA 639:8)?  Thanks.

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061023/ba6227b0/attachment.htm

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 20
*************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@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-request@lists.aishdas.org

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

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