Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 1

Wed, 10 Jan 2007

• 1. Re: No Gehenom on Rosh Chodesh (Mordechai Torczyner)
• 2. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (Aryeh Stein)
• 3. Re: Maakeh (Jacob Farkas)
• 4. Re: Prophet - mashgiach or godol hador? (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 5. Re: Changing Havarah (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: Changing Havarah (Arie Folger)
• 7. Re: lighting a chanukiya (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: Clarification on Hareidi El-Al (Arie Folger)
• 9. Re: Clarification on Hareidi El-Al (Daniel Israel)
• 10. Re: Changing Havarah (D&E-H Bannett)
• 11. Re: Changing Havarah (D&E-H Bannett)
• 12. Admin: Digest numbers (Micha Berger)

SBA wrote:
> The Chido in his peirush Pesach Einayim on Mesechta RH mentions 
> that just as neshomos are freed from Gehenom every Shabbos - so it is 
> every Rosh Chodesh. 

Rosh Chodesh does seem to have that sort of special status within Kabbalah; the Zohar (Lech Lecha pg. 81b) writes that we have a neshamah yeseirah on Rosh Chodesh.

See Afarkisasa d'Anya 1:50 for a discussion of why we don't use besamim after Rosh Chodesh ends, if we are losing the neshamah yeseirah at that point. The Divrei Yatziv YD 236 uses this (presence of neshamah yeseirah) to explain why some minyanim won't have an avel lead minchah on Erev Rosh Chodesh; mekubalim (cited in Tzitz Eliezer 7:49:2) wrote that the neshamah enters at chatzos of the erev.

Be well,
Mordechai 


--
Congregation Sons of Israel, 
Allentown, PA 
http://www.sonsofisrael.net 
HaMakor! 
http://www.hamakor.org 
Mareh Mekomos Reference Library 
Webshas! 
http://www.webshas.org 
Index to the Talmud
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070109/df6155c9/attachment.html 

From Halichos Shlomo vol. 2:

While RSZA was normally noheg to wait 72 minutes to do melacha on
motzei shabbos like Rabbeinu Tam, on Motzei Shabbos Chanukah he would
like the chanukah candles before that time - between 35 and 40 minutes
after sunset.  (And, in accordance with the minhag yerushalayim, he
would light the chanukah candles before making havdalah.)

According to RSZA, those that hold like Rabbeinu Tam do not do so
because they believe that this is the "ikar din" but rather they do so
"b'toras chumra," and since waiting that long on Motzei Shabbos would
mean that the best time to light chanukah candles will have passed,
one should not be machmir like Rabbeinu Tam on Motzei Shabbos
Chanukah.  RSZA did not only practice this himself, but, when asked by
others, he told them to do likewise.

(As for erev shabbos chanukah, when the first night of Chanukah is
Friday night, according to RSZA, one should say "Al Hanisim" during
mincha if he lit the chanukah candles before mincha (even though it's
only the 24th day of Kislev).  (And at least one local shul, in which
they first lit the menorah and then davened mincha, said Al Hanisim
during mincha - including during chazaras hashas.)  The reason Al
Hanisim is said (according to RSZA) is not that Chanukah has begun -
because it hasn't, but because, once we light the menorah, the chiyuv
of hoda'ah for the nisim begins.)

KT,
Aryeh

> On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 01:29:50PM -0500, Jacob Farkas wrote:
> : Actually the Steipler held that the Issur Hezeq is Lo Sukhal Lehisaleim
> : (The lo sa'asei of Hashavas Aveidah)...
> 

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> This is more consistant with the rishonim. The Minchas Chinukh seems to
> be the only source for saying that lifnei iveir could be applied beyond
> the realm of bad advice.

Yad Remah in Bava Basra 26 is a Rishon who explicitly states that 
V'lifnei Iveir applies to the literal. Rashi in Hullin implies that 
V'lifnei Iveir was "literal only" for the Kusim, and his language 
implies that according to Hazal it is literal plus figurative. Meshekh 
Hakhmah (though not a Rishon) suggest the literal and figurative.

 >
> Jacob Farkas:
> : the Steipler quotes the MH's Sevara as a source to Biur HaGRA who held that Hezeq is an Issur Torah
>

R' Micha Berger:
> Why? Right after providing a different pasuq as the basis of the issur he
> argues the Gra's de'Oraisa from a chiddush of the MC which runs directly
> against the Sifra as quoted by Rshi (thanks RJF for confirming that).

Forgive my poorly written paragraph in the last post. MH is not talking 
about Hezeq in general as much as Bor Berushus Harabim, which he 
considers to be prohibited because it violates V'lifnei Iveir. The 
Steipler has a haqirah about Hezeq, in general, if there is an Issur, 
and is it Deoraisa or Derabanan. He quotes MH who describes a 
prohibition concerning (exclusively) digging a Bor, but his haqirah is 
with hezeq in general, what is the nature for prohibition.

His thesis is that it prohibited, midoraisa, from the Lav of lo sukhal 
l'hisaleim.

In latter footnotes (perhaps in later editions, or maybe after he put 
together the Sefer) he quotes the Biur HaGRA who implies that Hezeq is a 
deOraisa, and also quotes Yad remah who says that V'lifnei Iveir and 
VeAhavtah Lereiakha komokhah are commandments against hezeq. This does 
not mean that his original thesis is mistaken, but it does support his 
view that hezeq is deoraisa, which satisfies other issues he raised. 
Whether he needs to rely on his own Sevara of hashavas aveidah is not 
relevant, he didn't retract his shtickl, he just mentioned another 
shitah in his notes.

When I wrote "...quoted MH Sevara", all I meant was "quoted V'Lifnei 
Iveir, in literal form.." It was poorly written, and I hope that 
explains this further.

> 
 > Jacob Farkas:
> : Digging a Bor Bereshus harabim is absolutely an Issur, the Mahloqes
> : Aharonim is wether it is an Issur Torah, or Issur Derabanan...
> 

R' Micha Berger:
> And, if I understand RMK's point correctly, the idiom "bor birshus
> harabim" does not relate to the issur, but comes from a discussion of
> paying the consequent damages. (I'm not clear on the limits of what's
> called "tort law" so I'm posting this as an opportunity to be corrected.)

I understood the discussion of Maakeh and whether certain conditions are 
obligatory from a danger perspective vs. a potential Din Torah of Bor to 
be under the assumption that Bor is not "assur," but you are opening 
yourself up to a possibility of damages. The question would be moot if 
you consider that in both cases (maakeh and bor) you have an Issur 
Torah, whether someone falls or otherwise, the prohibition is still 
biblical, for creating this hazardous condition.

The idiomatic referral of Bor bereshus harabim as a Hoshen-Mishpat-esque 
condition ignores the reality that creating this condition includes, be 
it general hezeq according to the Steipler, be it the literal V'lifnei 
Iveir, as understood by some rishonim (and the MH) to be included in the 
prohibition thereof, be it VeAhavta as well, according to Yad Remah.

I am supporting R' Torczyner's claim, in earlier posts, that if the 
situation is dangerous there is an Issur, even if not covered by Maakeh. 
He was challenged that perhaps it won't be an Issur, rather it creates a 
situation that is under the jurisdiction of torts, implying that the 
creation of said situation was not in itself problematic.

[As to how the MH is able to reconcile the Sifsei Hakhamim's proof that 
Rashi al haTorah was compelled to explain that V'Lifnei Iveir is 
metaphoric only, is not a strong argument. As the Issur is the context 
of the prohibition misleading someone, it is still davar haMasur l'leiv, 
as the Issur includes numerous scenarios that the intentions are not 
known to others, KNLAD]

--Jacob Farkas

Regarding the issue of whether Dovid was head of Sanhedrin I just came 
across Kol HaMevasser 1:76 who was bothered by this question.

"It is a very serious question how the Kesef Mishna at the beginning of 
Mishneh Torah could say that Dovid was the head of Sanhedrin since this 
is against the Gemora, Tosfos and the Rambam. In fact the Rambam in his 
introduction to Mishneh Torah is not saying that Dovid was the head of 
Sanhedrin. He is stating that Dovid was the next link the Mesora after 
Shmuel since Dovid deseminated and taught Torah to the people as we see 
in Moed Koton (16b)... and in Eiruvin(53) and Sanhedrin (93b) that the 
halacha is always in agreement with him. However we find that in the 
Rambam's Commentary to the Mishna (Sanhedrin Chapter 2) he writes that 
Dovid was part of the Sanhedrin. This is astounding since it is against 
the gemora that a king should not be appointed to the Sanhedrin and it 
also contradicts what he himself writes in Mishneh Torah (Sanhedrin 2:5) 
Tzorech iyun gadol."

*??? ???? (?:??):*  *??"? ?????* ... ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???"? 
????? ?????? ?????? ????"? ?"? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? 
???????? ??? ??? ???' ?????' ?????"? ???' ??????? ??"?. ?????? ????"? 
??????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? 
??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???????? ???"? ??? ?? ?"? ?"? ????? ????? 
???? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ???' ????????? ?? ?"? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? 
????? ????????? ?? ?"? ?"? ??' ??? ????? ????? ??? ????. ???? ?????? 
??????? ?????"? ??"? ???????? ????? ????: ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???' 
???? ?"? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???' ???? ??????? ??? 
???????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?"? ???' ??????? ?"? ??"?, ???"?.


                   Daniel Eidensohn

RDC wrote:
> The Yemenite kamatz sounds much like the Ashkenazi kamatz with which
> we are familiar. ?Given the assertion that the current Ashkenazi
> kamatz is a recent development (in relative terms), is this just a
> coincidence, rather than a reflection of a common origin?

IIUC, what RPhEM was saying was that the Ashkenazi pronounciation of the 
qomatz (ven shoin, denn shoin) has been lost in early European communities 
and was reintroduced from Teverya, where the famous masoretes - who used and 
spread our niqud system - lived. Thus, a 
kind-of-like-the-Latin-"O"-pronounciation of qomatz is correct, 
Teverianically speaking.

Of course, that leaves the question open as to how that "O" should be sounded, 
long or short, like "oa" in "board" or like "u" in bus (but definitely not 
like Brooklynites and Israelis, who pronouce that "bas").

> Also, I don't recall hearing this before from other Yemenites, but
> there is one person whom I hear lain frequently according to his
> Yemenite tradition, and he pronounces the cholam in a way that
> strongly resembles the Polish "oy." ?Could there be anything to this?

There are three different Yemenite major 'edot, and each pronounces the 'holam 
differently. There is even support for the Lithuanian/'Habad 'heilem.

BTW, the Polish "oy" is quite surely an unintentional reform that developed in 
the 15th-16th century. Please see Rav Hamburger's Shorashei Minhag Ashkenaz, 
Vol. I.

However, since I am a student of this whole matter, and no expert, I wonder if 
RSMandel is still on-list and whether he would give us some more info. RPhEM 
(CCed) should also chime in, as he seems to know quite a lot about this.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RDC wrote:
> I have one source that mentions in passing that the decision was made
> in the 5690s (1930s CE). ?Given that Modern Hebrew had already been
> gaining popularity as an everyday language for a few decades before
> that, does this mean that Modern-Hebrew-speaking Ashkenazim had
> previously been conducting their everyday speech in "havoroh
> Ashkenazis," and then suddenly changed?

Dr. Marc Shapiro quotes a source, in his biography of Rav Jechiel Jacob 
Weinberg, that in his early Berlin years he belonged to a circle where they 
often spoke Hebrew with each other. RJJW was the most fluent Hebrew speaker, 
and ... with Lithunian accent.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RAB wrote:
> It still needs to be explained how Chazal were mataken a mitzva that no one
> had to keep for hundreds of years, and only after the churban. What were
> they thinking?

Kindly explain. Didn't you show in your post that lighting the menorah 
on 'hanukah was a standard practice, already long before the discussion you 
quoted from TB Rosh haShono 18b?
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RDSF wrote:
> (e.g., C instead of O cemetaries, burial pits for
> worn-out religious books, etc.)

Rabosai, I am glad to see that RDF is posting again (that's you, RDF from 
Chicago, IIRC?). I fondly recall my early Areivim days (sadly, I no longer 
read Areivim), when RDF was very active.

RDF: I am sure you meant "C instead of *J* cemetaries", for the level of 
observance the cemetary keepers have and their affiliation is irrelevant to 
the tuma exuded by the graves. C would of course stand for Christian, not 
Conservative. However, I believe that, while NJ are not metame beohel, they 
are metame immediately above them, so the rabbis would likely rule to avoid 
any cemetary.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:48:49 -0700 Arie Folger 
<afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:
>RDF: I am sure you meant "C instead of *J* cemetaries", for the 
>level of observance the cemetary keepers have and their 
affiliation is
>irrelevant to the tuma exuded by the graves. C would of course 
stand
>for Christian, not Conservative. However, I believe that, while NJ 
are 
>not metame beohel...

Since we're claryifying initials, and for the benefit of the New 
Yorkers, NJ here is "Non-Jews" not "New Jersey."  I will not 
comment on whether New Jersey is m'tamei b'ohel...

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

Re: RD"C's << whom I hear lain frequently according to his 
Yemenite tradition, and he pronounces the cholam in a way 
that strongly resembles the Polish "oy."  Could there be 
anything to this?>>

As has been mentioned before, and even more well publicized 
in the Mesorah sub-list, there are two Yemenite 
pronunciations of the cholam. One is like a tzeire and the 
other is like oy, but more like the Turkish oy with the 
mouth scrunched up.  The ei is more in the south and the oy 
is strong in San'a.

R' Yosef Kafach in his book on minhagei Teiman states that 
the men in San'a said oy and the women ei. (ei = eh-ee, not 
ah-ee).  I don't know if he was referring to all Sana'ites 
or to Darda'im only.

k"t,

David

Re:  <<Rashi calls the segol a "patach qatan">>

Not only Rashi. It is not proof of his using Bavli nikkud 
where there is no separate symbol for segol.  Patach katan 
was the name used at that time. Similarly, kamatz katan was 
the name used for what we call tzeire. A separate name = a 
separate sound, not like the Bavli nikkud.

From the name patach we see that the mouth was patuach. 
From the name kamatz we see that the mouth was kamutz. That 
is the difference between the two vowel sounds.

Similarly the segol has a more open mouth while the tzeire 
has a more kamutz mouth. (Kamutz is the word for what I 
called "scrunched up" in my last posting.

BTW, By tzeireh, I do not mean the American diphthong 
replacement.

Another BTW, in that last posting, when speaking of the 
Teimani cholam I used eh-ee to differentiate from the 
Galitzianer ah-ee.  Although it appears that I said it, I 
didn't mean to say that the Teimanim use the diphthong.


k"t,

David 

I know people must be wondering what happened with the digest numbers
lately.

I finally got the volume numbers on the new server in proper sequence
with the digest numbers on the old one. We're now in volume number 23.
If you go to www.aishdas.org/avodah you will see that you can now refer
to every digest without needing to distinguish between the "old volume 6"
or the new one.

Unfortunately, since the tiny volumes 6 and 7 went out while I was trying
to sort this all out, they didn't map as cleanly. It's a complication
involving 5 digests.

Here's the mapping, if anyone cares.

New v1 -> v18
New v2 -> v19
New v3 -> v20
New v4 -> v21
New v5 -> v22, digests 1-24
New v6 -> v22, digests 25-28
New v6n1 -> v22n29

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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 1
*************************************

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..."