Avodah Mailing List

Volume 21: Number 4

Wed, 08 Nov 2006

• 1. Re: What is the source for the minhag of Chasidim to have HaK afos on Shmini Atzeres night? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. Re: Prophets are infallible? (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 3. acronyms (was "Re: What is the source for the minhag of Chasidim to have HaKafos on Shmini Atzeres night?") (MPoppers@kayescholer.com)
• 4. FW: Noach and Lashon T'horah (Zvi Lampel)
• 5. Re: Prophets are infallible? (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Reason for Hamotzi ? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Taking Tums On Shabbos and/or Yom Tov? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Women and obligations of Rosh Chodesh (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 9. Re: Reason for Hamotzi ? (yzkd@aol.com)
• 10. taking off chalah from cake dough (Sterling Touch)
• 11. Re: Prophets are infallible? (M Cohen)

Ragerding the pronunciation of magdil/migdol, someone wrote:
> (WADR to the TT, the theory doesn't work because the Avudraham
> mentions the practice, and he didn't know about a future splitting
> of Shemu'el by people in another part of the world.)

to which R' Simon Montagu asked:
> I don't understand this disproof. The TT's theory seems to me to
> work just as well if the original note said "beit shin" for
> "bishmuel"

But the orginal note was not simple "beit shin". It was "beit shin 
beit", which could mean either "b'Shabbat" or "b'Shmuel Beit".

R' Simon Montagu added:
> A similar example that I heard from the late Rabbi Ephraim
> Wiesenberg of London is the note in some haggadot that on motza'ei
> shabbat one should say "min hapesahhim umin hazebahhim" instead
> of "min hazebahhim umin hapesahhim" shortly before the second cup
> of wine. Now, there is an explanation (which I forget) why on
> motza"sh the pesahh was eaten before the zebahh, but what does that
> have to do with it? In context, it refers to "regalim ahherim
> haba'im likratenu" and davka not this year, so why should the order
> this year be taken into account? Instead, it is suggested, there
> was originally a note "beit mem shin" meaning "bamishna" (referring
> to the mishna within the bavli, Pesahhim 116b) which was
> misinterpreted as "bemotza'ei shabbat".

I concede that this may have had its basis in such a text, like 
magdil/migdol. Nevertheless, this is a great opportunity for me to 
offer an alternate explanation, one which answers RSM's question 
of "why should the order this year be taken into account?"

The answer is that you are correct; it makes no sense logically. But 
it makes a great deal of sense pedagogically.

Shaar Hatziyun 473:80 explains that normally, the chagigah (zevach) 
is eaten prior to the pesach, which must be eaten when already sated. 
But the chagigah cannot be slaughtered on Shabbos, so when Erev 
Pesach is Shabbos, the chagigah had to be delayed until Sunday, i.e., 
Yom Tov afternoon, long after the seder. Therefore, when the seder is 
Motzaei Shabbos, the text of the bracha is changed to reflect the 
order of eating for that year: first the pesach, then the chagigah 
(zevach). (The Shaar Hatziyun does also bring the opposing view, that 
the text is left unchanged, because it is talking about *next* year.)

Now, let's suppose that we want to teach people that when the seder 
is on Motzaei Shabbos, the order of the korbanos is switched. 
Switching their order in the brachos is a great way to teach this. 
There are many things which we do at the seder to inspire such 
questions, to which the father will tell the kids, "Here, have some 
more nuts while I look that up." (Ooops, started to slip into Purim 
mode there... :-)

Now, I grant you that the text of the bracha is about *future* years. 
But so what? Should we change the text only in years when the 
calendar say that *next* year the seder will be Motzaei Shabbos? 
There are several problems with that idea. One is that the bracha is 
not about *next* year, but about future years in general, and 
switching it *all* the time would be absurd. Another problem is that 
it would show a lack of emunah that we hope to be on a new calendar 
(eidei r'eeah) by next year.

So we go the simple route. When the seder is on Motzaei Shabbos here 
and now, we teach about when the seder is on Motzaei Shabbos in Beis 
HaMikdash days. Even though the bracha is about future years. Not 
because it makes sense, but because it is a good opportunity to 
demonstrate the idea.

But this is not the only case where pedagogy trumps logic. A much 
better example is Lechem Mishneh.

Think about it. In what was does it make sense to require double 
loaves on Saturday? That's not when the double manna fell. It fell on 
Friday! If you want to be logical, then you should require double 
loaves when you eat lunch on Friday!!!

But from a chinuch perspective, Friday is just too impractical. Are 
we going to require that people must make hamotzi on friday? If not, 
the lechem mishneh will only apply when people voluntarily choose to 
eat bread. Pretty soon, it'll get forgotten.

So instead, we do Lechem Mishneh on Shabbos. Even though in the 
midbar, when Saturday lunch arrived, we had already eaten one loaf of 
manna and were down to one left. Even so, Chazal still require that 
we use two loaves, and specifically to remember it the double portion 
of manna -- which was already gone by Saturday!!! Does it make sense 
logically? No, not really. But does it teach us about the manna? Yes, 
very well.

I think there are other examples, but I can't remember them. I 
suppose covering the challah on Shabbos is another manna-related 
thing which ought to apply only on Friday.

Akiva Miller

R' Zvi Lampel wrote:
>
> Every human being, even Moshe Rabbeynu, is fallible. But when true 
> prophets report a prophecy, the Sefer Ikarrim 3:17 cited succinctly 
> begins "sheh-kall divrei ha-neveim amti'im b'li safek,"--all the words 
> of the prophets are true without question (as is indeed the 6th of the 
> Rambam's 13 Ikarrim).
>
Where does it say in the Rambam's 6th principle that all the words of 
the prophets are true? In fact it doesn't even say that we must accept 
all of Moshe's prophecy as being true in the 7th principle. The 8th 
principle states that the Torah we have is what was given to Moshe at Sinai.
>
> The Sefer Ikarrim says--as does the Torah--that the prophets other 
> than Moses perceived and related Hashem's thoughts through imagary and 
> riddles. Thus, they perceived "seeing" Hashem which, as an 
> impossibility, is an erronous sight. Nevertheless, he says, they were 
> fully aware that the image they saw was not literally true, but only 
> true for the message intended. They did not misunderstand what they 
> saw, any more than one misunderstands a model of an atom when he knows 
> it's only a model of an atom.
>
I disagree with your reading of the Sefer HaIkkarim. He is saying that 
the words of the prophets are true in some sense - but not necessarily 
absolutely true. He is clearly saying that Yeshaya had misunderstood 
what he saw and that he lamented his error.

The Sefer HaIkkarim says: "Even though that all the words of the 
prophets are true without doubt, nevertheless according to the greatness 
of the prophet and his level of prophecy is the truth that comes from 
his words strengthened.. [In other words the statements of some prophets 
are more truthful than others. He then explains this by saying that the 
lower level  prophets did not see so clearly and this is equivalent to 
being able to see the object but not being able to distinguish the color 
or some other detail. However there is another distinction in accuracy 
of prophecy. Not only did the prophets differer on the amount and nature 
of the details but that there was a major difference between the 
prophecy of Moshe to that of the other prophets. The other prophets saw 
through visions and symbols while Moshe saw directly. Visions and 
symbols can be misunderstood and therefore  there was an additional rule 
that a prophet could not report seeing something that violated a 
principle that Moshe had reported in his prophecy.] Thus Moshe said that 
it is impossible to see Gd and therefore even though a prophet might 
mistakenly think he saw Gd - he had to know that it was an erroneous 
perception. Thus he says, "Gd spoke mouth to mouth to Moshe and not in 
riddles as with the other prophets [Bamidbar 12:6-8]. From this verse we 
know that the words fo Moshe werre absolutely true without any doubt and 
in contrast the words of Yeshaya who was on a lower level were not 
correct. Due to Yeshaya's inferior level he said, "I saw G-d". Yeshaya 
mistakenly thought that he saw G-d. However what he saw was the product 
of his imagination. In contrast Moshe's prophecy did not involve the 
faculty of imagination at all ... and he said that no man can see Gd and 
live - which is the truth. But Yeshaya utilized in his prophecy the 
faculty of imagination which our Sages call the "unclear lense" . He was 
thereby brought to error and to imagine that he had seen G-d. He himself 
said that his perception of Gd was in fact a mistake because of the 
involvment of his imagination. He states in this prophecy that he was 
brought to this error because he was not as spiritually refined as was 
Moshe. He said "I am a man of impure lips". Furthermore his character 
was not properly refined as he sat among bad peeople causes a 
degradation of a good person. that is why he says "Woe is to me that I 
imagined" In other words that he had been misled by the power of his 
imagination.and that he did not have the pure prophecy of Moshe... 
Consequently we learn from all of this that any prophet on a level lower 
than another prophet can not possibly contradict the words of the 
prophet who is superior to him.Since the Torah testifies that Moshe was 
the greatest prophet it is impossible to listen to any propeht who 
disagrees with him or rejedts his words...."

Furthermore Rashi, Metzudos Dovid and Redak note that Yeshaya is upset 
that because he was impure when he saw Gd he was going to die.Thus these 
commentaries are stating that Yeshaya was conviniced that He literally 
saw G-d..

The problem that comes from this analysis is that since Yeshaya realized 
he had erred - why did he record the erroneous understanding in his 
sefer? If he was required to record all his prophesy why didn't he 
clearly state that it could not have been an accurate report? The Sefer 
HaIkkarim notes that [Yevamos 49b] when Yeshaya was sentenced to death 
for stating that he had seen Gd he had not defended himself. But that he 
could have stated that even those in Moshe's time had made this error 
and it had been recorded in the Torah [Shemos 24:10]. But why was an 
erroroneous description recorded in the Torah without any indication 
that it was an error?

Daniel Eidensohn

In Avodah Digest V4#3, RSMontagu wrote:
> A similar example that I heard from the late Rabbi Ephraim Wiesenberg
of London is the note in some haggadot that on motza'ei shabbat one
should say "min hapesahhim umin hazebahhim" instead of "min hazebahhim
umin hapesahhim" shortly before the second cup of wine. Now, there is
an explanation (which I forget) why on motza"sh the pesahh was eaten
before the zebahh, but what does that have to do with it? In context,
it refers to "regalim ahherim haba'im likratenu" and davka not this
year, so why should the order this year be taken into account? <
IMHO, because we're noting what the order would be if it was motzoei
Shabbos and we once again could bring korbanos.

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/20061107/17432034/attachment.htm

My son came home with a d?var Torah that answers a question I?ve had for a long time. Chazal say that the Torah used extra words "not tahor," as opposed to "tamei" (when describing the non-kosher animals Noach was to take into the ark) to teach the importance of using lashon nekiah.

It always bothered me: The Torah nevertheless does use the lashon "tamei" many times (my CD search came up with 238). What happenned to the concern for lashon nekiah?

Answer: To impress upon us the gravity of becoming tamei, or eating tamei, or violating someone or otherewise making someone tamei, the harsh language is called for. When Hashem is instructing Noach as to how many of these non-kosher animals he should allow in the ark, however, a harsh language is uncalled for. Therefore a lashon nekiah is called for.

This is actually the only occurence in Nach of the terminology "sheh-aynah t?horah," and all other references to non-kosher animals involve their unfitness for pure purposes, so the thesis is not really testable. But I think it makes a lot of sense, no?

Zvi Lampel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061107/44e52c8d/attachment.html

On Sun, November 5, 2006 5:52 pm, Zvi Lampel wrote:
: The Sefer Ikarrim says--as does the Torah--that the prophets other than Moses
: perceived and related Hashem's thoughts through imagary and riddles....

Nisht azoi pashut. For example, in Yeshaiah's first nevu'ah, he not only
recieved imagery and riddles, but a Voice taught him how to interpret the
nevu'ah. Shemu'el misidentified his first nevu'ah for Eili calling his name;
it would seem it too was composed of straight words the way people talk to
eachother.

I don't know how to resolve this with the Ikkarim.

I have also argued that there are two shitos as to what nevu'ah is: The Ramban
seems to work from the position that nevu'ah is a message from the Borei. The
Rambam, OTOH, seems to hold that nevu'ah is a perception of what's going on
spiritually. Perception of real things, presumably clouded by the mind trying
to perceive it in familiar terms. The issue comes to a head over (1) the
Ramban's questions on the Rambam's take on the mal'achim in Vayeira, and (2)
the Rambam's and Rav Saadia's insistence that the "Man" in the throne at
ma'amad Har Sinai and on the Merkavah was the kavod nivra.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/mishpatim.pdf>.

Are you saying the Ikkarim explicitly sides with the position I believe is the
Ramban's?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sat, November 4, 2006 10:36 am, SBA cited a reader of Mavakshei Torah who
: asks about the nusach of "Hamotzi Lechem min Haaretz".
: He notes that all other similar brochos use the workd "Borei",
: eg 'Pri Ha'etz', 'Pri Ho'adama', 'Minei Mezonos', 'Minei Besomim', 'Pri
: Hagofen'.
: So why not here as well?

: And after all, we do not actually get our bread straght from the ground.

I would think that's asked and answered. Beri'ah is yeish mei'ayin, so it's
not appropriate for bread. Minei mezonos becomes odd though. Yes, Hashem does
directly create mezonos, but the particular mazon the person is about to eat
has as much (or more human involvement) as bread.

R' Ron Yitzchak Eisenman spoke about this in a derashah one Shabbos morning.
(I forgot his sheim omero, but since RRYE is CC-ed, I invite him to "reply to
all" lehavi hege'ulah.)

IIRC, RRYE taught that the whole point of acknowledging that HQBH is the
Mamtzi of the bread, is bedavka because it's indirect. Lechem is the thing for
which man is most likely to  fall into the trap of kochi ve'otzem yadi, ch"v.

This is the same reason why Birkhas haMazon is so much longer than the
berakhah of Borei Nefashos.

I used the word Mamtzi because I reconjugated hamotzi, but I'm glad I did. It
brought to mind Rambam, pereq 1 meHil' Yesodei haTorah. HQBH is the Mamtzi for
everthing, including the lechem, the physics, chemistry and biology, human
beings their psyches and knowledge, etc... everything it took to produce the
lechem. It fits nicely that the word Mamtzi is used by the rishonim to discuss
First Cause, not only direct cause.

(Of course the word could have drifted in meaning, but that takes us to a
different thread....)

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Fri, November 3, 2006 2:27 pm, R M Cohen wrote:
:> Are Tums considered candy or medicine in regard to taking on Shabbos..

: R Shlomo Miller (Rosh kollel and posek Lakewood and Toronto) holds that
: taking Tums (and similar types of things) are mutar to take before the
: illness (ie heartburn) has arrived.

Similarly, on Sat, November 4, 2006 11:36 am, R Mike Miller wrote:
: Many people take Tums as a calcium supplement (both pro-actively and
: in response to low calcium), so they may have a din of vitamins.

As I see it, this would mean that Tums (TM) would require a hechsher. Taking
treif vitamins or gray-area medicine on Shabbos would seem to me to be a tarta
desasrei.

This is Areivim-esque, but just to wrap up that end of things: Some forms of
Tums have a hecsher (star-K says you can use the ones with a diamond-K), some
do not, and of those that are kosher, some are chalav stam (thus milchig).

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Women are supposedly exempt from Melacha on Rosh Chodesh.

What are the parameters of this exemption?  What Melachot? How long? 

Does anyone know of an article (available on-line or in Hebrew off line) on this topic?

Thank you,

Shoshana L. Boublil

See Sugia Brochos 38a, and Tos. D"H vHilchisa 38b.
 
Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: micha@aishdas.org
To: sba@sba2.com; avodah@lists.aishdas.org
Cc: rabbi@ahavasisrael.org
Sent: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Reason for Hamotzi ?


On Sat, November 4, 2006 10:36 am, SBA cited a reader of Mavakshei Torah who
: asks about the nusach of "Hamotzi Lechem min Haaretz".
: He notes that all other similar brochos use the workd "Borei",
: eg 'Pri Ha'etz', 'Pri Ho'adama', 'Minei Mezonos', 'Minei Besomim', 'Pri
: Hagofen'.
: So why not here as well?

: And after all, we do not actually get our bread straght from the ground.

I would think that's asked and answered. Beri'ah is yeish mei'ayin, so it's
not appropriate for bread. Minei mezonos becomes odd though. Yes, Hashem does
directly create mezonos, but the particular mazon the person is about to eat
has as much (or more human involvement) as bread.

R' Ron Yitzchak Eisenman spoke about this in a derashah one Shabbos morning.
(I forgot his sheim omero, but since RRYE is CC-ed, I invite him to "reply to
all" lehavi hege'ulah.)

IIRC, RRYE taught that the whole point of acknowledging that HQBH is the
Mamtzi of the bread, is bedavka because it's indirect. Lechem is the thing for
which man is most likely to  fall into the trap of kochi ve'otzem yadi, ch"v.

This is the same reason why Birkhas haMazon is so much longer than the
berakhah of Borei Nefashos.

I used the word Mamtzi because I reconjugated hamotzi, but I'm glad I did. It
brought to mind Rambam, pereq 1 meHil' Yesodei haTorah. HQBH is the Mamtzi for
everthing, including the lechem, the physics, chemistry and biology, human
beings their psyches and knowledge, etc... everything it took to produce the
lechem. It fits nicely that the word Mamtzi is used by the rishonim to discuss
First Cause, not only direct cause.

(Of course the word could have drifted in meaning, but that takes us to a
different thread....)

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061107/bc4400ed/attachment.htm

Someone just told me that one is required to remove
chalah from cake dough as well as bread dough. Has
anybody else heard this? Is there a difference
between  a commercial baker and home baker?
 Jeff

> Does anyone else state that prophets are fallible?

see derech HaShem chelek gimel, perek dalad, section 8-11 where he speaks
extensively about this subject

how a true prophet can think he rcvd prophecy and he didn't,
how a true prophet can misunderstand his prophecy,
how a true prophet can be misled by kochas hatumah to false prophecy
etc

ayain sham

Mordechai Cohen

M. Cohen
Vice President, Development
TouchLogic Corporation
____________________
30 Kinnear Court, Suite 2A
Richmond Hill L4B 1K8

Tel:          905.707.0207 x 120
Email:      mcohen@touchlogic.com
Website:  www.touchlogic.com


STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY
The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to
this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may
contain confidential or privileged information. Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
immediately destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.




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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 4, Issue 4
************************************

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..."