Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 82

Wed, 18 Apr 2007

• 1. Choson-Kallah not seeing each other (SBA)
• 2. Re: When do the malachim come (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: Peanuts and other Kitnios (Danny Schoemann)
• 4. days of yom haazmaut (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: Choson-Kallah not seeing each other (Ari Zivotofsky)
• 6. cutting hair in sefira (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: When do the malachim come (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 8. 10 pieces of Chometz (Chaim G Steinmetz)
• 9. Kitniot (Jonathan Baker)
• 10. Re: Yom Haatzmaut and Behab (Marty Bluke)
• 11. Re: electricity on Shabbos (saul mashbaum)
• 12. Re: R Asher Weiss (saul mashbaum)
• 13. Re: Miriam and Aharon (Doron Beckerman)
• 14. Re: Miriam and Aharon (Ken Bloom)
• 15. Re: When do the malachim come (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 16. Torah study vs. other contributions to society (Doron Beckerman)
• 17. Novardok bitachon (Micha Berger)

Does anyone have any sources for the minhag of the Choson 
and Kallah not seeing each other for the 7 days before their wedding?

SBA

As I understand it, the poskim take Malachim very seriously. An uncle of
mine once recounted a Machlokes between R' MF and RYBS (sorry, I have no
Mareh Mekomos) as to what direction one should turn for Bo'ee B'shalom
when the entrance of the Shul is not in back. IIRC, the Machlokes
revolved upon their respective understandings of how Malachim act - no
cynicism or Chassidism involved. 

KT,
MYG

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


given for turning towards back.  One that the shchina is in the west and
since in the "standard' galut shul (e.g. europe) the aron faces east and
the doors are in the west (so walk in facing aron), you turn around
(which happens to be where the doors are) - the prescriptive fetail is
the west.   Others say prescriptive detail is doors (to greet the
shchina)

I know of shuls where there are more than 1 minyan room facing in more
than 1 direction that have a mesora of just facing the back - noy sure
of basis.

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.

>  But when they banned all pod-growing seeds, mustard was included.

Actually mustard may be the easiest one to explain, as the 8th mishna
in the 2nd perek of Pesochim already forbids mixing mustard and flour.

Mustard may therefore be a "red herring" when discussing kitnios.

- Danny

According to the present position of the Chief Rabbinate in Israel, when the
5th of Iyyar falls on a Monday, Yom Haatzmaut is pushed off until Tuesday.
See http://www.lookstein.org/resources/chief_rabbi.pdf .>>

the 5th of iyar is the same day as the seventh day of Pesach
or the same as erev pesach. Hence the 5th of iyar can fall out on

friday,shabbat,monday or wednesday.
In the first three cases yom hazikaron/tom haazmaut is pushed off.
Thus the chances of yom haazmaut falling on the 5th of iyar is about 25%

-- 
Eli Turkel

for them not seeing at all there are many sources.
for not seeing for a week, there are no real sources that I know of.
See:
http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5765/5765summer/LegalEase.Chatan.kallah.pdf
http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/vayeshev/pzib.pdf

SBA wrote:

>Does anyone have any sources for the minhag of the Choson 
>and Kallah not seeing each other for the 7 days before their wedding?
>
>SBA
>_______________________________________________
>Avodah mailing list
>Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
>http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>
>  
>

I just received an email with the psak of ROY that the custom of not
cutting hair
during sefira and the 3 weeks does NOT apply to women. Is this
generally accepted?

-- 
Eli Turkel

R' Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote:
> As I understand it, the poskim take Malachim very seriously. An uncle of
> mine once recounted a Machlokes between R' MF and RYBS (sorry, I have no
> Mareh Mekomos) as to what direction one should turn for Bo'ee B'shalom when
> the entrance of the Shul is not in back. IIRC, the Machlokes revolved upon
> their respective understandings of how Malachim act - no cynicism or
> Chassidism involved. 
>   

See Igros Moshe (O.H. III #45 page 349):

Daniel Eidensohn

 MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote
> 
> So far, I can think of two possible answers.  The first one is based 
> on 
> private conversations I've had with RAM, while the other one just 
> popped 
> (no pun intended :-)) into my head while reading RaMBaM Hilchos 
> Chameitz 
> uMatzah 2...
> (2) The language of RaMBaM Hilchos Chameitz uMatzah 2:7 implies that 
> the 
> custom of hiding 10 pieces is part&parcel of the mitzvah and not 
> some 
> external aspect.
> 
WADR, the Rambam is NOT referring to the minhog of hiding pieces (which I
doubt he had at all). He is talking about someone who was bodek, found 10
pieces, put then aside, and later found 9 (as in the sugya Psochim 9a-b).
Achronim already point out the "remez" of 10 pieces being mentioned in
the sugya - which has nothing to do with the actual minhog.
Chaim Gershon Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com

RZS:

> The original reason for gezerat kitniyot isn't really known, because
> there are no records of who made the gezera, and when.  But the

I note that you use the language of "gezera", when most people talk
about it in terms of "minhag".  Is there evidence that it was even
created as a gezera (and does a gezera work in a limited geographic
area?  and how does geographic area translate to family practice in
this era of geographic mobility?) rather than a "practice" or "minhag"
of lay people that just spread?

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

The answers that I received that Yom Haatzmaut is pushed off until
Tuesday, actually raises more questions. How exactly does that work al
pi halacha? Does this apply in Chutz Laaretz where the chillul shabbos
question is not relevant? That would be quite interesting, people in
America saying Hallel on Monday and people in Israel saying hallel on
Tuesday.

In response to my citation of the Shaarim HaMetzuyanim B'Halacha (Vol I 37;7) who writes that the position of the CI that electricity is boneh supports the idea that these appliances are considered mechubarim lkarka and thus do not requite tvila, RMBerger asked:
>>
Does the above mean that the CI was only talking about AC appliances? That
battery powered devices, with no cibur laqarqa wouldn't be boneh? In which
case, how would a battery powered calculator (no filaments, no chibur laqarqa,
can't be considered a keli zemer) wouldn't be a problem?

>>
The CI OH 50:9 writes that operating any electicrical appliance is m'taken mana (the electricity makes the appliance usable), and "kol sheken" appliances which are attached  a socket, since this is binyan b'mechubar, which is more chamur than binyan b'keilim (which is still assur in this case, because of m'taken mana). Thus the CI was being cited to demonstrate that plugged-in appliances are considered m'chubarim l'karka, not to say that the issur of electricity applies only to such appliances.

Saul Mashbaum 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070418/63f11fdd/attachment.html 

RMKopinsky wrote about my scenario of poor people giving each other tzedaka
>>
See SA OC 696:4 (talking about Mishloach Manos): "V'im ein lo, machlif im chaveiro, zeh sholeich l'zeh seudaso v'zeh sholeiach l'zeh seudaso k'dei l'kayem umishloach manos ish l'rei'eihu." 
Not a complete parallel, but there is a similarity...
>>

Can anyone see why this is mentioned (by Chazal)  by mishloah manot, but not by matanot l'evyomin?

Saul Mashbaum 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070418/5a2f3718/attachment.htm 

See Avos D' Rabbi Nosson Perek 9:2, that Aharon was not the primary talker
(or perhaps,  was not talkative generally?) and therefore his punishment of
Tzaraas (if it happened at all - see Sugya  Shabbos 97a) was not made clear
( i.e. the Tzaraas that he got for just a moment, was transferred to
Miriam).

The Passuk does say "VaTedaber Aharon U'Moshe", not "VaYedab'ru", implying
that Miriam was the one who was more involved in the actual stating of the
Lashon Hara.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070418/621e306d/attachment.html 

On Wednesday 18 April 2007 00:55, T613K@aol.com wrote:
> [question from my husband --TK]
>
> I was asked why only Miriam was punished for speaking lashon hara
> about Moshe.  The pasuk clearly states that Aharon did so as well. 
> Why  wasn't he also punished?  I know that there are opinions that he
> also was  stricken but the parsha does not spell that out.  Can you
> ask your areivim  pals if anyone knows?

Miriam spoke, Aharon listened, and the lashon harah was about Moshe.
All three died before entering Eretz Yisrael. According to some, Miriam 
was the *only* woman who died in the midbar (since the women weren't 
involved in the sin of the maraglim), and all of the other women 
entered Eretz Yisrael. I've heard (and I don't recall the source) that 
the incident involving the rock was supposed to be a tikkun for this 
lashon harah, and Moshe and Aharon died because they didn't perform the 
tikkun correctly.

--Ken

-- 
Ken Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070418/d9d838c7/attachment-0001.pgp 

R'n TK:
> I can put this in a cynical sounding way, or in a chassidish sounding way,
> but either way the answer would be the same:  a. cynical -- do you /really/
> think malachim come to your house every week -- and that it matters to them
> when, or whether, you sing to them? Do  you really think the malachim come
> home with the Abba from shul, and if he doesn't go to shul -- they don't
> come?    b. chassidish -- the malachim come when they are welcomed.
>  
> In either case, the answer is the same:  you sing Sholom Aleichem when you
> want to.  
>
>
>
>   
See Igros Moshe (O.H. V. #43.6 page 146).

Daniel Eidensohn

I just wanted to point out what the Pe'as HaShulchan says in his preface,
that the GRA wanted to study pharmacology from the doctors of the time (i.e.
the practical stuff of how to concoct medicines. It sounds like the
theoretical things he figured out on his own), and his father forbade him
from doing so, so that he should not have to waste time from Torah study,
since he would have to go save lives if he knew how to practically apply the
knowledge he would get from the doctors).

I believe this is based on the Gemara in Megilla that Gadol Talmud Torah
MeHatzalas Nefashos. Had the GRA known practical medicine, he may have had
situations of a Mitzvah that could not be done by others to save lives, and
his father felt that it was not comparable to the value of the extra Torah
study the Gaon could accomplish.

The Chofetz Chaim expresses similar sentiments.

Does the Torah UMadda accept  this approach as part of its Hashkafa, and, if
so, how? Or does TuM feel that other sources contradict this approach?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070418/79a25a6c/attachment.html 

On Wed, April 18, 2007 6:49 pm, T613K@aol.com asked on Areivim about my comment:
:> With all due respect to the Alter of Novardok, I see no evidence that
:> bitachon comes with any guarantees of success.

: What did the Alter say?  Did he say that if you have enough  bitachon, you
: will for sure get exactly what you want?  I can't imagine he  said that.

Actually, that's pretty much what he did say. Which is why the CI wrote Emunah
uBitachon to refute the position. Leshitas CI: Bitachon is trusting that
Hashem is making sure that everything is turning out as it's supposed to.

The Alter of Novardok would sign letters BB, for ba'al bitachon. This wasn't
ga'avah. He held that his bitachon was experimentally proven, and thus simply
a matter of fact.

Novardok talmidim often went through experiences to learn middos. Such as the
famous story of being sent to the pharmacy to buy nails as a means of learning
anavah and not to be dissuaded because of what others would think of you.

One such excercise was to be put on a long train ride with no return ticket.
Never lost a talmid. This was to show why bitachon is justified -- everything
turns out okay in the end if you just rely on Him.

How far is this from REED's famous formula of bitachon plus hishtadlus. A
person needs to put in hishtadlus to get what he wants to the extent that his
bitachon is imperfect. Doesn't this implictly rest on a definition of bitachon
that is about getting whatever it is your histadlus is working toward?

: Anyway, so far I haven't seen anything in MOAG about perfect bitachon
: bringing perfect results, or conversely, that if things go wrong, it means you
: didn't have perfect bitachon.

Mussar has three Alters, that I know of.

First was Kelm, founded by the Alter of Kelm, R' Simcha Zisl Ziv. REED is a
product of Kelm, and not the first prominent Rav Dessler who studied and
taught in Kelm. One of his talmidim went on to become the Alter of Novardok --
R' Yosef Yoizl Horowitz. And another talmid, R' Nosson Tzvi Finkel became the
Alter of Slabodka.

MOAG is about life in Slabodka -- the fountainhead of many of the 20th
century's gedolim. I don't recall much about the Alter of Novardok in it, if
anything.

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 82
**************************************

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..."