Avodah Mailing List

Volume 22: Number 26

Tue, 02 Jan 2007

• 1. Re: Chanukah--miracle of the oil vs. miracle of the victory (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 2. Re: Al petach beito mabachutz (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 3. Re: Al petach beito mabachutz (Zev Sero)
• 4. Smoking shailah (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Re: The GRA (Dov Bloom)
• 6. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: FW: RE: Chanukah--miracle of the oil vs. miracle of (dhojda1@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Glatt Yosher? (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 9. Re: Changing Havarah (Michael Kopinsky)
• 10. Re: Al petach beito mabachutz (Michael Kopinsky)
• 11. Re: Glatt Yosher? (Michael Kopinsky)
• 12. Bchirah chofshit (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Re: Glatt Yosher? (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 14. Changing Havarah (Jonathan Baker)
• 15. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (A & C Walters)
• 16. Re: Changing Havarah (A & C Walters)
• 17. Maakeh (Mordechai Torczyner)
• 18. Re: Maakeh (Micha Berger)

<The fact is that all early sources, including Books of Maccabees, 
Megillas Ta'anis and our text of Al HaNissim refer just to the 
military victory and not to the nes pach ha'shemen.>

     The b'raisa in Shabbos 21b is found verbatim in M'gillas 
Ta'anis. It makes an offhanded reference to the military triumph, and 
emphasizes the nes pach hashemen almost exclusively.  In M'gillas 
Ta'anis, there is more, but it, too, makes only casual reference to 
the war.

EMT 

To the comment,

<<Is cold really a reason not to light outside?  I mean, we all bundle
up in our coats and manage to make it to the car, and then from the
parking lot to work - does it take that much more time to go outside,
place your already-prepared menorah in its box, and light the candles?
I mean, cold can make it difficult, but sakanah?  This is not quite
like sleeping in the sukkah, where there exists a much more
significant concern.>>

part of an answer given was

< While sitting with the nerot may not be formally a part of the 
mitzvah, it's certainly part of hiddur mitzvah and common minhag, and 
an opportunity for chinuch; the "experience" of yiddishkeit that RMB 
praises in another context.  This would be lost if one bundled up, 
took the nerot outside to light them, and then went back inside.  Or 
at least I'd feel that way.>

     However, the prime function of ner Chanukah, which is pirsumei 
nissa, is intended for those _outside_ one's home, not for those 
inside. Thus, the z'man is ad shetichle regel min hashuk. There is no 
indication that "lirosam bilvad" is anything more than r'shus.

EMT 

Michael Kopinsky wrote:
> On 12/31/06, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:


> Would *your* goyish neighbors be scared that 8 small flames safely
> contained in a glass box, hanging on the non-flammable brick wall would be
> a fire hazard?  I don't think mine would.

I'm pretty sure my neighbours (and not just the goyishe ones) would
be concerned.


> (And where does this heter about fires on shabbos appear?)

See OC 334:26

>> 4. Leaving the menorah outdoors exposes it to a sakanah of being
>> stolen.

> And if someone was willing to light outside on the days when it
> wasn't cold out, he has showed that this is not a concern.

I meant leaving it outdoors *unattended*, since this was the proposal
I was discussing.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

R Moshe in C"M 2:76  responds to a Dr. Rabbi Meir Rosner. Does anyone
know if this is Fred Rosner?
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070101/88260229/attachment.htm 

A good example of the GRA's minhagim not being accepted:
The Maase Rav  (Siman 67) lists the fact that the GRA didn't say VeShomru Friday night before Amida and was silent when the kahal said it. This he did in order to have Geula adjacent to Tefila (Amida). This  minhag of the GRA has become somewhat prevelant in EY in Ashkenazi minyanim. However according to the same Maase Rav in the GRA's shul everyone said VeShomru, the congregation and hazzan did say VeShomru and only the GRA didn't. So even the GRA's shul didn't hold like this minhag of the GRA. 
"aval hatzibur she-etzlo? ve-haSh"atz hayu omrim"

T613K@aol.com wrote: 
> RZS writes:

>> So it remains theoretically *possible* that the stars visible before
>> 4 millin are all what Chazal called "gedolim", and only the ones that
>> become visible then are "beinonim", and perhaps the "kochavim ketanim"
>> are ones that are too small or distant for us *ever* to see with the
>> naked eye

> I don't buy it.  There is no way Chazal could have spoken of "kochavim 
> ketanim" and intended the average person over the last 2000 years to 
> understand that term to mean "invisible stars."  It is just too
> implausible.

You don't have to buy it.  It remains possible that those who supported
what we call "shitas RT" bought it.

Nor is it relevant what the "average person" was to understand, since
the shiur of 3 middling stars was not given to the average person, but
to experts in astronomy.  It was for the benefit of the rest of us,
who wouldn't know how to classify a star's magnitude if our lives
depended on it, that the other shiurim were given.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

 I have not been following the discussion here, but wished to point out
(if no one else has) that Rabbi Berger's explanation that there is no
obligation to give thanks in return for a miracle that enables one to
perform a mitzvah is to be found in the Maharal's Ner Mitzvah.

Dovid Hojda

I am not aware that such "Hashgocho" exists in the secular world - al 
achas kamma v'kamma in our small world.


YGB



Rich, Joel wrote:

> I  agree with YGB's statement but I think Micha was asking a link up 
> the causality chain - why is there sufficient demand for glatt kosher 
> but not glatt yosher?  Perhaps the answer is that empirically the 
> orthodox community does not view being msayea to less than yosher 
> activities, especially one step removed, as a halachik or hashkafic 
> (let's debate whether these are separate issues :-) ) prohibition.
>  
> KT
> Joel Rich 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070101/724566a2/attachment.html 

Thank you for the correction.  (And for a good response to any
Israelis who make a fuss about this.)

On 1/1/07, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> Michael Kopinsky wrote:
>
> > Since pretty much every havara has duplicates for some letter or vowel,
> > examples such as these are numerous.  "Hayom harath olam", in ashkenazis,
> > means "Today is the destruction of the world."
>
> No, it doesn't.  Because (unlike many Temanim), we do distinguish between
> patach and segol.  Nor is it "today He destroyed the world", because we
> distinguish between patach and komatz.
>
>
> --
> Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
> zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
>                        	                          - Clarence Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>

On 12/31/06, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> A & C Walters wrote:
> > I wrote:
> >>> The fact that originally there was a din to light outside is
> >>> irrelevant; chazal were mevatel it
> > 
> > My source is Shu"t Dvar Yehoshua
> 
> Who's he?

Shut Dvar Yehoshua was written by Rav Yehoshua Menachem Mendel Aharonberg, 
AB"D of Tel Aviv-Yaffo.  The book was published in 5730.

(Interesting:  On the title page he writes, "Lo l'halacha ponim, v'lo 
l'maaseh onim, ela l'pilpul miskavnim."  Is it normal to have such 
disclaimers in a sefer Shu"t?)

 
> > "after the sealing of the talmud which was beshas sakono, chazal
> > were oyker the mitsvah of lighting outside
> 
> What's his source for this assertion?

He does not say that the time of the of the sealing of the talmud was
sakanah. (This is unlike what A & C Walters said he said.) He agrees that
from shas it is mashma that you should light outside (Shabbos 21b "Amar
Rava, Mitzvah...").  However, from the fact that Meseches Sofrim, which
was written during the days of the Geonim, does not say "tefach hasamuch
l'rh"r", but rather "tefach hasamuch l'pesach", it must be that by that
time, the ikkar din of lighting outside had been mevutal.  (This proof is
long and complicated, and I have not done it justice here. Ayein sham.)  
Also, from the fact that already during the days of Rashi and Tosafos, who
did not live long after the Geonim, they already didn't know how the ikkar
din was supposed to be, it must have been that it was mevutal long before
their days.  Also, the Or Zarua writes, "I don't know why we don't light
outside bazman hazeh when there's no sakana."  Now, the Or Zarua was a
Gadol Hador, and if he had the power to reinstitute the practice, he
certainly could have, so it must be he (the Or Zarua) held that it was
misbatel in the days of the Geonim and could/should not be reinstituted.

(I'm not agreeing with his arguments - in fact, I have several kashas on 
each of them - but just conveying what he says.)

> > For a list of rishoinim that say:

Just to clarify, the Dvar Yehoshua does not list them.  A&CW must have 
gotten the list from elsewhere.

On 1/1/07, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer <ygbechhofer@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not aware that such "Hashgocho" exists in the secular world - al
> achas kamma v'kamma in our small world.

If not formal hashgachas (which I think there are), there certainly are
stores that make sure that all their products are produced in moral ways.
Go to any health food store and ask them.  (Let me know what they say.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html?_r=1&;oref=slogin&r
ef=science&pagewanted=print

Worthwhile reading. At least one opinion seems like the traditional
interpretation of ein mazal lyisrael. The parallel to quantum physics is
also one of interest (I've heard some compare this to a  kabbalistic
approach)

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070102/d092660a/attachment.htm 

Accoding to this line of reasoning, since there are kosher health food
stores, this hashgocho already exists. Ergo, no problem...

YGB

On Tue, January 2, 2007 7:45 am, Michael Kopinsky wrote:
> On 1/1/07, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer <ygbechhofer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am not aware that such "Hashgocho" exists in the secular world - al
>> achas kamma v'kamma in our small world.
>
> If not formal hashgachas (which I think there are), there certainly are
> stores that make sure that all their products are produced in moral ways.
> Go to any health food store and ask them.  (Let me know what they say.)

RZS:

> No, it doesn't.  Because (unlike many Temanim), we do distinguish between
> patach and segol.  Nor is it "today He destroyed the world", because we
> distinguish between patach and komatz.

Really they don't distinguish between patach and segol?  I remember Israela's
father leining that summer, and segol was aa like "back", while patach was ah
like "father".  Kamatz was aw like "hall", just like Ashkenazis.  (All in 
Northeastern US vowel sounds, of course).

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

I wrote

>>>>You are right. The Gr"o himself makes this point, that the zman daled 
>>>>mil
>>>>is only in Bavel/EY.

This means, of course, that in Chu"l anywhere north of EY, one has to be 
more machmir mot"tzsh than 72 mins, which means that if 72 mins is accepted 
as sho shovious, it comes out a kula. Those who claim that RT is only nogeia 
in Chu"l not in EY because in EY it gets dark quicker (metzius) are mistaken 
(I'm not refering to those who say it's not nogeia in EY because many pasken 
shitas haGro)

MeMonofshach. If we go sho shovious, it's zicher nogeia in EY. Even if we go 
Sho zmanious it's davka nogeia in EY (and in North America/Western Europe, 
it should be more than 72 mins. Shver on RMF who says 50 in NYC)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to generate a targeted mailing lists to grow your business
http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/KCuXzzV1W3oWUuapSs3bxTmfTkyPws/

> On 12/31/06, A & C Walters <acwalters@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>> The Rabeinu Bechaye in parshas vayero says that someone who changes a 
>> komotz
>> to a pasach could lead to kefira.
>
> On which word does he say this? (Just so I can look it up.)

Bereishis 18:3 "Vayomer Hashem/Adoynoy (see Rashi et al if it is a Shem 
Kodosh or shem chol; also see below in RBc) im na metzosi chein beinecho"

I will translate and paraphrase here, but ayin shom as it is a fascinating 
shktil, and the translation doesn't do it justice.

...The nekudo of kometz has a big mayle and is the first of the seven 
tenuos...the difference between a kometz and a pasach is only in one nekudo, 
and the whole mayle of the kometz is in the shape of one nekudo...since one 
dot changes a seirei to a segol and a pasach to a kometz and a chirik to a 
shva etc someone who adds or subtracts one dot destroys the world....even 
though it seems that there is no difference between a kometz and a pasach, 
this is not so, in that the kometz is a higher sound and the pasach is 
lower. This reflects on the fact that the nature of the kometz is yoreh on a 
big mayle and on something which stands by itself, and is not soymeich on 
anything else.... and for this reason haShem is written with a kometz not a 
pasach...The difference between a kometz and a pasach is the difference 
between light and dark and between holy and profane and therefore we find 
that if a pasach is substituted for a kometz it will definitely lead to 
either a false understanding in the posuk or will lead to KEFIRA...some 
baalei dikduk also add that a kometz represents emes and a pasach is 
sheker...

See there for examples and the full loshen. I think, however that my 
translation is still in context. Also note that since RBc was a Sefardi (I 
think) there is a difference even for them, k"v Ashkenaizim

AYW

On 12/29/06, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Think how many shuls you know have a duchan built like a stage
> -- no maakah. We think of Judaism in very rite-based terms: frumkeit, not
> ehrlachkeit.

Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 427:3 explicitly exempts a shul from a maakeh.

Presumably, though, if it were truly a dangerous situation there would still be a lifnei iver obligation.

Be well,
Mordechai


Congregation Sons of Israel, Allentown, PA www.sonsofisrael.net
HaMakor - References on Torah Topics - www.hamakor.org
WebShas - An Index to the Talmud - www.webshas.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070103/2f5ee66c/attachment-0001.htm 

On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 06:41:46AM -0500, Mordechai Torczyner wrote:
: On 12/29/06, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
: > Think how many shuls you know have a duchan built like a stage
: > -- no maakah. We think of Judaism in very rite-based terms: frumkeit, not
: > ehrlachkeit.

: Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 427:3 explicitly exempts a shul from
: a maakeh.

... and it's more chayav in mezuzah?

That was the point of my comparison: Many (most?) shuld have on a
mezuzah because we can't picture a Jewish room without one, even though
in this case it's a reshus. But we do not equally picture Jewish space
requiring maakos.

: Presumably, though, if it were truly a dangerous situation there would
: still be a lifnei iver obligation.

I don't think so. Bor bereshus harabbim. But lifnei iveir is not once
mentioned in the gemara as an issur against physically harming people.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 22, Issue 26
************************************

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..."