Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 85

Mon, 23 Apr 2007

• 1. Re: When do the malachim come (torahmike@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: When do the malachim come (T613K@aol.com)
• 3. Re: Aliyah l'regel (T613K@aol.com)
• 4. Aliyah l'regel (Jonathan Baker)
• 5. Self-awareness as a Middah (Yonatan Kaganoff)
• 6. Shabbos Chazon/Shabbos Nachamu (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)
• 7. Why so many details of tzora'as in the Torah? (Dov Kay)
• 8. Re: When do the malachim come (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 9. Re: Shabbos Chazon/Shabbos Nachamu (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: More on Mitzvos and Iyun (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: R Asher Weiss (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Peanuts and other Kitnios (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: kashering caeser stone (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: 10 pieces of Chometz (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: kashering caeser stone (Daniel Israel)

>>I always thought we were greeting Shabbat haMalka. Surely SHE needs a
door!

    I don't know for sure what chazal meant exactly by the  "shabbos malka,
" but I'm
guessing/positing it was either A. a metaphor B. A pseudonym for the
shechina, not an actual independent entity. For if it was an actual
independent entity, it would seem to me it would be assur to bow to it.
                                             Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070422/c90e7cb8/attachment.html 

 
 
From: "Daniel Israel" <dmi1@hushmail.com>
>>OTOH, thus far  the sources mentioned here are greeting the Shabbos 
and greeting the  Sh'china.  Where do we see malachim are involved 
at all?   (Actually, given the context of L'cha Dodi, what is the 
source for saying  the Sh'china?)<<

--
Daniel M. Israel





>>>>>
The problem is that the discussion started with singing Sholom Aleichem  to 
the angels and then somehow segued to singing Lecha Dodi.


--Toby  Katz
=============



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070422/1a52f098/attachment.htm 

 
 
From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
>>And why is it  "aliyah l'regel" when the way the halacha is practiced
seems to be "aliyah  b'regel"?  Ascent to the foot?  The foot of  what?<<


 
>>>>>
I understand it not as "ascent to the regel" but "ascent /for/ the regel"  -- 
as one would say, "I'm going home for the holidays" not "I'm going home to  
the holidays."



--Toby  Katz
=============



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070422/c836c4cf/attachment.html 

From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
> Daniel Israel:
  
> > aliyah l'regel?
 
> And why is it "aliyah l'regel" when the way the halacha is practiced
> seems to be "aliyah b'regel"?  Ascent to the foot?  The foot of what?
> God's foot? 

Several people pointed out off-list that it's "aliyah for the holiday"
not "to the holiday".

My response:

Ainochenami.  The festivals are only called "regalim" once, at Ex. 23:14.
Chazal seem to take this to imply a requirement for foot-pilgrimage.
Since this is a requirement, it seems a bit odd that they then divorce
the aliyah from the raglayim, and remap it to the regel-festival, in 
the commonly-used expression.

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

I have been wondering about the following question and am now posting 
it to the Aishdas society to see if anyone has any thoughts on the 
matter.
   
  Is emotional or psychological self-awareness (and I would also 
include being in touch with one's emotional/feelings/etc.) considered a good 
middah to be acquired like humility, faith, not being angry, jealous, 
resentful, or envious, etc.?
   
  Or could it be considered like a preparation, a hechsher for working 
on a middah, like a hechsher mitzvah?
   
  Or, as a third option, it could be seen a valuable in making a person 
into a better or happier person.  And with self-awareness, one can 
better be an ovaid hashem.  (But is this just another way of saying a 
hechsher middah?)
   
  I know many people who have self-awareness, but haven't used it to be 
better people, but, on the contrary, have used it to justify their bad 
middos.  
   
  On the other hand, I have met people who lack self-awareness, but 
this has not stopped them from working on their middos, and being very 
good people.
   
  Does anyone have any thoughts on this question?
   
  Yonatan Kaganoff
       
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070423/7b123e61/attachment-0001.htm 

Are Shabbos Chazon and Shabbos Nachamu _always_ Parashas Devarim and
Va'eschanan, respectively?

KT,
MYG 

Tazria-Metzora always raise at least 2 questions in my mind:

1  Why does the Torah shebichsav spend so much time spelling out the details 
of tzora'as relative to other, more practically relevant areas of halacha 
(eg hilchos Shabbos)?   Yes, chazal say that divrei Torah are "rich" in some 
areas and "poor" in others, but this more of an observation than an 
explanation.

2  When did tzora'as cease to be prevalent? (Assuming, contrary to the 
Radziner Rebbe, that melanomas are not negaim.) I do not recall seeing 
anywhere that these halachos are not noheg l'doros.  As the haftara for 
Metzora shows, tzora'as was still prevalent at the time of the nevi'im, but 
do we hear anything about its prevalence in the time of bayis sheni?

It occurred to me that perhaps Torah shebichsav devotes more time to topics 
that were more practically relevant for the generations until churban bayis 
rishon, as it was foreseen that Torah (and particularly Torah sheb'al peh) 
would be neglected in the time of bayis rishon relative to the era of bayis 
sheni.  Chazal tell us that bayis rishon was destroyed because they did not 
make birchos haTorah, meaning that Torah wasn't given its due, compared with 
Avodah.  In bayis sheni, however, Torah was learnt with vigour, and the 
churban resulted from sinas chinom.  The Netziv writes that Torah sheb'al 
peh flourished more in times of bayis sheni than bayis rishon.

The topics which would become far more practically relevant in later times 
(at least relative to topics such as tzora'as) could be darshaned by the 
Tannaim, whereas less acumen for darshening existed amongst the chachmei 
bayis rishon and the details directly relevant to them needed to be spelled 
out expressly in the text.

It's just an idea.  Is this question addressed by the great meforshim? Is my 
answer problematic?

Kol tuv
Dov Kay

_________________________________________________________________
Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile.  
https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/

I posted:
> The logic has always been apparent to me: Why would
> a malach need a door?

R' Daniel M. Israel asked:
> Why would a malach use a wall when there is a door
> available? Consider Rashi regarding the behaviour
> of the malachim visiting Avraham Avinu.

and similarly R' Elliott Shevin asked:
> I always thought we were greeting Shabbat haMalka.
> Surely SHE needs a door!

Actually, these questions *support* my suggestion.

The malachim who visited Avraham Avinu adopted human form and human 
behavior, and would therefore have used a door rather than walking 
through walls. But whoever/whatever it is that we greet at the end of 
Lecha Dodi is clearly incorporeal (at least, *my* eyes have never 
seen it) and therefore has no need of doors.

Akiva Miller

Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote:
> Are Shabbos Chazon and Shabbos Nachamu _always_ Parashas Devarim and
> Va'eschanan, respectively?

Yes.


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

On Thu, April 12, 2007 9:19 pm, R Michael Kopinsky wrote:
: When Gemara is taught correctly, as not just a training of the mind
: but a tool in refining the person, a blatt Gemara really can be the
best
: mussar seder....

The problem I have is that many in the yeshiva velt explain Nefesh
haChaim IV to connect learning to sheleimus on a mystical level. One
needn't try to learn for the sake of refining the person, the
connection is innate in the nature of Torah.

I do not believe this is the NhC's intent for three reasons:

1- If RCV really believed that, how did he have R' Zundel Salanter as
a talmid?

2- It would also be a huge break from his rebbe. The Gra, in Even
Sheleimah (I do not recall where in Mishlei it is taken from) comments
on the comparison of Torah to water. Water helps one's plants grow;
but if one waters weeds, it helps them grow too.

3- RCV was too wise to advice a course that experimentally doesn't
hold up. We know many who learned well and didn't become paragons of
sheleimus.

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

In the original post, oOn Thu, April 12, 2007 9:44 am, Rich, R Joel
wrote:
: Shliach shel adam kamoto applies only to the technical kiyum hamitzvah
: (not sure if this extends to schar) but not to segula of mitzvah (e.g.
: mitzvah gorreret mitzvah)

Isn't the segulah of the mitzvah a function of the mitzvah's roshem on
the person, and the technical qiyum the minimum necessary to make the
minimum obligatory change?

Looking at sechar va'onesh causaly in this way, I don't see how the
two can be separated.

In any case, mitzvah bo yoseir mishelykho -- even with qiyum, the
segulah is lesser. Unsurprisingly: lefum tza'arah agra, and sending a
shaliach is less effort.

But I think this example fails:
> If one of us and the gadol hador were on a desert island and there
> were only one kzayit of matzah available for pesach and it was our
> property, Hashem would get more nachat ruach if we gave it to the
> gadol hador to be mkayem the mitzvah (and we should act as such -
> although iiuc we would not be compelled to)

There is a side issue which complicates this case. Giving to the gadol
hador would qualify as ma'os chitim.

For this reason, I also don't understand the halakhah RSZA gave over
to RDE. Why would it be a bizayon of mitzvas matzah to perform ma'os
chitim and show kavod harav? If anything, since these mitzvos can be
performed now, perhaps they should be even though one is very likely
giving up mitzvas achilas matzah that evening.

Or is the scenario where it's tokh kedai dibur left before chatzos
before happening upon a kezayis matzah? And thus one must choose
between the deOraise and the deRabbanan and both are simultaneous, or
never.

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 Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:16:13 +0300 R Danny Schoemann <doniels@gmail.com>:
: As to the "Machon Shilo" thread about "The Psak Halacha Permitting
: Kitniyot", the kuntras brings the OhS in 453:4 regarding Kitnios:
: "This issur - since our ancestors accepted it as a Geder - may not be
: abolished by us MiDin Tora, and those that cast aspersion and treat it
: lightly prove that they do not have Yiras Shomayim or Yiras Chet and
: are not expert in the ways of the Torah." (!)

But they aren't talking about abolishiong the issur. They are saying
that the issur is still fully in force for Ashkenazim. They are
objecting to an Ashkenazi moving to Israel and remaining an Ashkenazi
rather than becoming part of Israel's kehillah and following its
minhag hamaqom (which they assume does not include refraining from
qitniyos).

And frankly, I'm still unclear as to how they are wrong. I suggested
that it's because minhag, by definition, isn't defined by fiat, it's
defined by seeing what people are doing, assuming it's mutar and an
attempt to be AYH enhancing. But objections were raised to this idea,
in particular, it would mean that new minhagim are only created by
people who beta'us or bemeizid violate the old minhag.

It also means that people who follow a Brisker sevarah (eg) rather
than his ancestors or locale's minhag really have nothing to stand on.
Since that includes the Gra and the Briskers themselves (and RSRH, for
that matter, as he made many changes to Minhag Frankfurt), it becomes
a difficult position to defend.

: This comment was apparently prompted by The Reform Movement which (150
: years ago) used kitnios as a proof that the Rabbis are simply trying
: to make life difficult. (No source given.)

Just to state the obvious because my decades on scjm addicted me to
such things:
The definition they're using is that a life of being able to do what
you want is easier. Rather than defining a life in which it is easier
to do what you're supposed to do being to be the easier life. The
objection therefore presumes their conclusion -- that there is no
tachlis to halakhah, no task to define difficulty.

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 Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:22:35 +0200 R Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com>
wrote:
: Rabbi Eidlits claims that caeserstone is only 93% stone. Anyone know
: what else is in there? However, many modern materials are composites.
: Does anyone claim that steel is not a "matechet" because it
: has other ingredients like
: carbon besides iron? The Torah lists gold and silver as
: "matechet" however one cannot use pure gold or silver as
: they are too weak. All gold and silver materials (even 24
: karat gold) has to have some other materials to strengthen them

Sidenote: The menorah must be as pure gold as possible. RSMandel once
poster here an argument against a straight-armed menorah because the
arms would sag. As RET writes, pure gold is quite malleable. If the
branches were curved leading to a straight vertical, even zahav tahor
would be able to support the weight.

I was contacted off list by someone who knows the subject.

Alloys and chemical compounds aren't mixtures in the same sense as a
mixture of powders, air, or caesar stone. Caesar stone isn't a
combination of chemicals to make a new chemical, but a collection of
disparate things in mixture. There is a difference between a gas which
contains a mix of oxygen molecules and hydrogen molecules, and water.
An alloy like steel or 14K gold would be a single chemical.

Ceasarstone is sold as being 93% - 94% quarts aggregates, color
pigments, and resin.

The question is the kashurability of the dyes and resins. Since they
exist between cracks of stone, they may be capable of absorbing
chameitz.

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, 13 Apr 2007 12:08:32 -0400 RMP <MPoppers@kayescholer.com>
wrote (as one of two possibilities):
: (1) While this mitzvah of "tashbisu" is unquestionably not a communal
: mitzvah, it's the type of individual-level mitzvah which actually is
: incumbent upon a ba'al habayis, so "extra incentive" provided by one's
: bayis ...                  is not being provided by an outsider but
: rather by the entity upon whom the proper performance of the mitzvah
: devolves.  As such, just as it would be OK if the bodeiq himself had
: previously hid some chameitz in an effort to ensure that he properly
: performed the mitzvah, so too it's OK if his wife/family hide some
: chameitz ahead of the z'man b'diqah, and this activity doesn't smack
: of "lifnei eeveir" because LI doesn't apply to what one's bayis
: does to oneself any more than it applies to what an individual does
: to himself.

Is tashbisu a din gavra or cheftzah? And if cheftzah, what's the
cheftzah -- the chameitz which must get removed or the reshus from
which is must get removed? If the nechasim are shared, does his chiyuv
separate from the other benei bayis?

Second, if it's on the cheftzah there is no concern about who the
mitzvah devolves, but who is in a position to be able to fulfill it.

Last, what about "zachin le'adam shelo befanav"? Doesn't that mean
that since there is an issur, the associated asei doesn't really just
devolve to one person?

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 Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:21:15 +0000 Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> 
wrote:
>I was contacted off list by someone who knows the subject.
>
>Alloys and chemical compounds aren't mixtures in the same sense as 
a
>mixture of powders, air, or caesar stone. Caesar stone isn't a
>combination of chemicals to make a new chemical, but a collection 
>of disparate things in mixture. There is a difference between a 
gas 
>which contains a mix of oxygen molecules and hydrogen molecules, 
and 
>water.
>An alloy like steel or 14K gold would be a single chemical.

I'm pretty sure that this is not quite correct.  Alloys are in some 
ways more like mixtures than compounds.  In a chemical compound the 
various elements combine into molecules at the atomic level.  In 
your example, a molecule of water contains two hydrogen and one 
oxygen atom which are bound together by intramolecular forces.

Alloys, such as steel or 14K gold, are made up of grains, and each 
grain is a crystal containing only one element.  The size of the 
grains may vary depending on how the alloy was produced.

Things like ceasarstone are made from separate pieces of stone held 
together by a resin.

Of course the pieces in ceasarstone are much, much bigger than the 
grains in an alloy.  Also, the grains are held together by chemical 
bonds, not by some type of glue (resin).

Hope that's reasonably clear.

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 85
**************************************

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..."