Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 135

Sun, 10 Jun 2007

• 1. Har Habayit (Yisrael Medad)
• 2. Re: zeicher/zecher (Zev Sero)
• 3. Tzitzit out (mike38ct@aol.com)
• 4. Re: Yeshivishe Peyos (Marty Bluke)
• 5. Re: Yeshivishe Peyos (Micha Berger)
• 6. haskafa vs halacha (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Har Habayit (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 8. Re: Avodah wearing tzitzit outside (D&E-H Bannett)
• 9. Re: Figs and Wasps (Arie Folger)
• 10. Re: zeicher/zecher (Arie Folger)
• 11. Har Habayit (Yisrael Medad)
• 12. Re: "Yeshivishe Payes" (Danny Schoemann)
• 13. Re: Yeshivishe Peyos (mkopinsky@gmail.com)

*Elazar M. Teitz writes:*
*I think the main difference is that not getting married is bitul
of a mitzvah.  Not going on the Har Habayis when one has no korban to
bring is not.*

Besides the matter that korbanot were not the only reason to be on/in the
Har Habayit, if I am not mistaken, the Rambam and others include building
the Bet Hamikdash as a mitzvah and in doing so, we can afford for the Jewish
people the opportubnity in one form or another to fulfill some 200+ mitzvot.
-- 
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
Mobile Post Efraim 44830
Israel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070608/11f1cd3d/attachment.htm 

reuven koss wrote:
>  >
>> reuven koss wrote:
>>>> It's older than the MB.  Lubavitchers say both, and even have a specific
>>>> minhag as to the order (in Ki Teitzei zeicher is first, in Beshalach
>>>> zecher is first), and they're unlikely to have got the minhag from the 
>>>> MB.


> there is no zecher in Beshalach on which there is a machlokes how it
> is read.

Sure there is.  It's the same word in both places, so why should there
be a safek in one and not the other? 


> Regarding the Gra in M"R, Rav Chaim Volozhner is a daas yachid that the Gra 
> read it with a tzere- most talmidim of the Gra say that he read it with a 
> segol.

I'm not sure what this whole thing has to do with the GRA.  I'm
fairly confident that it didn't originate with him.  That there's
a machlokes in what he did, which side of the safek he came down on,
is one thing, but the safek itself, and the custom of some people
to say both, is surely older.   I doubt that L would have a minhag
based on a machlokes between talmidei haGRA about how he lained.


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

We have discussed in the past of the position of the Mishnah Berurah on
wearing tzizit outside of the clothing. In a shiur I went today on hilchot
Tzizit (parshat hashavua) the rabbi noted that if one's tallit get torn
on shabbat so that the tzizit are not valid then one need not remove
it in shul because of kavod habriot. The MB notes that for a tallit katan
this does not hold because that is private and not public.
The implication being that not everyone wore the tzizit of the talit katan
outside!
(As a side issue he said that today the halacha of Tallit might be changed
because of the availability of a shul tallit)
--------------------------
On the subject of wearing tzitzit outside, R. Jonathan Sacks had what I thought was a beautiful dvar torah on the subject this week.

http://www.ou.org/shabbat_shalom/article/covenant_and_conversation_fringe/

Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070608/f19158b6/attachment-0001.html 

R' Micha Berger wrote:
<What about noi mitzvah, which is a qiyum of zeh Keili ve'anveihu?
<People spend money on esrog boxes, and invest time decorating their
<Sukkos -- even though it doesn't make the esrog or Sukkah superior.

That is no different then hiddur mitzva, it only applies to an aseh
and not a lav. There is no mitzva to have peyos, the mitzva is not to
cut them off, therefore how can there be noi mitzvah? What is the
cheftza of the mitzva?

On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 09:43:03PM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote:
: That is no different then hiddur mitzva, it only applies to an aseh
: and not a lav. There is no mitzva to have peyos, the mitzva is not to
: cut them off, therefore how can there be noi mitzvah? What is the
: cheftza of the mitzva?

There is no mitzvah for an esrog or megillah to have a case, never
mind a pretty one. And an artistic kesubah doesn't make the contract
any more valid. Noi mitzvah is thus broader than hiddur mitzvah. (RYGB
suggested here once that a wig is noi mitzvah in sei'ar be'ishah ervah,
BTW.) Why assume it doesn't apply to lavin?

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
micha@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Unknown shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter

Israel Medad writes

<Is the issue then halachic or...ideological haskafa?

Which brings me to the Shomer Emunim and the Muncatzcher approach.  In one
of his books, Pierkage (sp?)  traces this approach of "EY is too holy" but I
think we all know that history and the thinking of the Em HaBanim S'meicha
has shown how wrong-headed this was.  It is not a question of proper
analysis of sources but an attempt to fit the Halacha to an outlook.  The
same with the VaYoel Moshe who gets into exactly what the Sitra Achra knows,
wants, desires and forgets about HKBH and simple Torah.>>

Part of the problem is that everyone is sure that his side is halachah and
the other side is haskafa.
Sperber in the most recent volume (8) of Mihagei Yisrael  brings down
several rishonim that were very much against moving to EY. Maharm
mI-Rotenberg  has a teshuva strongly discouraging moving to EY. There is a
teshuva from chasideoi ashkenaz (R. Yehuha HaChasid?) prohibiting it in the
strongest terms.
Sperber's own interpretation is that in times when "aliyah" was popular like
the early baale hatosafot moving to Acco then teshuvot appeared in favor.
Later when the crusares were kicked out the teshuvot argued against it (and
not just on economic grounds but fundamentally). 100 years later when
conditions improved the Maharil was in favor.
Today each side quotes the poskim that agree with their stand and ignore
those on the other side.

Similarly with har habayit. As REMT has pointed out there is no mitzvah to
go to har habayit in the absence of a bet hamikdash. Hence, why take a
chance with karet?

On halacha there are 3 types of problems

1. hard problems - where there are strong reasons for doing 2 oppsite
activities and one has 2 decide between the alternatives

2. medium problem - one side is very important  and the other is less
important. Then one tries to find a heter (if needed) for the important
issue at the expense of the lesser issue.

3. minor issue - both sides are minor.

I remember hearing from RYBS that he refuse to discuss issues of the amount
of water needed for netillat yadaim. Giving modern homes why not be machmir?
He remembered from his youth the water boy going to the river to bring up
water. Then the question was importanr and so it might be important today in
rare circumstances but in everyday cases one should be machmir on the
grounds of why not?

Hence the question is why not be machmir on entering har habayit when there
is a question of karet? The only reason seems to be political rather than
halachic. This is probably why RAL does not support going up. Even R.
Shapira discourages going up as serving no purpose. The rabbanim that favor
it are generally members of the "yisrael hashlema movement" and so encourage
it for political reasons.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070609/420ca216/attachment.htm 

> From: "Elazar M. Teitz" <remt@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Har Habayit
> To: avodah@lists.aishdas.org

>     I think the main difference is that not getting married is bitul
> of a mitzvah.  Not going on the Har Habayis when one has no korban to
> bring is not.
>
> EMT

I was reading the material presented in Sidur HaMikdash, Shabbat regarding 
Mitzvot to be performed in the Mikdash itself, and apparently Korbanot are 
not the only mitzva.

A. There is a Mitzva min HaTorah to enter Har HaBayit for prayer and Ze'aka 
when a Ta'anit is called, when Am Yisrael is in danger (Sefer HaMitzvot 
Rambam, Aseh 59 and Hilchot Ta'aniyot 1:a), for example: during water; 
plague; lack of rain; or other Pur'Anuyot.  It is a Mitzva both during the 
time of the Bayit and when it's BeChurbano.

At this time, they are supposed to blow on Chatzotzrot HaKesef and a shofar 
(described in Mishna Rosh Hashana 25;a and Rambam).

Shaliach Tzibbur adds 7 special blessing to the prayers with a special 
ending and during which Cohanim Tok'im UMeri'im (see Rambam there, chapter 4 
and especially halachot 16-17).

This gathering is held Davka near Sha'ar HaMitzrach of Har HaBayit (NOT the 
Kotel) so that as many as possible can partake, including Tmei'ei Meit and 
Tevulei Yom.

B. There is a special mitzva to do Teki'ot Rosh HaShana Davka on Har HaBayit 
(mishna Rosh HaShana 3, 3 and also 27;1).

C. There is a special mitzva of Netilat Lulav on Sukkot during all 7 days 
davka on Har HaBayit (see Sefer HaMitzvot Rambam mitzva 169). It was not 
cancelled b/c of the Churban.

These 3 are just examples.

There are many others examples and special tefillot which are answered davka 
if said on the Har HaBayit itself.

Shoshana L. Boublil

Re: RET's <<The MB notes that for a tallit katan this does 
not hold because that is private and not public. The 
implication being that not everyone wore the tzizit of the 
talit katan outside!>>

The tzitzit inside/outside question has been discussed on 
the list many times.  The most complete history was posted 
by R' Seth Mandel and can be found in the archives.   I can 
probably find some of R' Seth's postings on the subject 
hiding in my computer and send them to anyone interested.

To RET's comment quoted above, I remind that the CC wore his 
tzitzit inside.  When his son-in -law and grandson pointed 
out to him that this was not what was recommended in the MB, 
they reported that he replied that his talmidim had written 
that text and they misunderstood what he meant.

I believe that what he meant was that, if the beged is worn 
outside, the tzitzit should not be hidden inside.

David

RMB wrote:
> But I don't think this is true, because it fails the Kuzari Test. I
> asked around, and no one around here heard of their grandmothers
> soaking their vegetables in vinegar. With the exception of the romaine
> lettuce used for maror. (Which was possibly the only time Ashkenazi
> grandparents ate romaine...) So at most I would think it is possible
> some qehillos did soak in salt or vinegar water, but it definitely was
> not universal.

Eastern European Jews didn't eat vegetables. My late father told me how, at 
the beginning of the war, while a prisoner of war (this is a humorous strange 
story in its own right: some Polish Jews retrocatively became prisoners of 
war after Germany attacked the Russian part of Poland; the Russians claimed 
that since Poland was now under German control and these Jews were from 
Poland, they were actually Germans), my father ate a turnip. A local military 
officer caught him and slapped him for eating dangerous food (or, as it was 
referred to in Yiddish, maakhel behaimeh). One year later they were all 
converted to "vegetabelism".

Gut vokh,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

Reb Rueven Kos wrote:
> Regarding the Gra in M"R, Rav Chaim Volozhner is a daas yachid that the Gra
> read it with a tzere- most talmidim of the Gra say that he read it with a
> segol.

Could you please provide references? AFAIK (based on a conversation with Rav 
Mordechai Breuer zal), there were only two players in this disagreement. 
However, the MR was one of those talmidim that moved to Israel, and so the 
Perushim followed the MR. For RMBreuer, the Perushim were the only ones 
justified in following the MR.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

Eli T. finishes off his posting asking:
*Hence the question is why not be machmir on entering har habayit when there
is a question of karet?*
And answers:
*The only reason seems to be political rather than halachic. This is
probably why RAL does not support going up. Even R. Shapira discourages
going up as serving no purpose. The rabbanim that favor it are generally
members of the "yisrael hashlema movement" and so encourage it for political
reasons.*
Of course, the other side of the coin is technically, logically and
halachically valid: why be machmir when perhaps you don't need/have to; or
whether it is uncalled for; or whether it stems from a political
consideration; and is preventing you or others from performing a mitzva?

And to throw a spanner into the works, see Divrei Yoel, p. 69 on Parshat
Noach where he seems to support, paradoxically, the position that the Beit
Hamikdash will be built first by the people of Israel davka to provide merit
for the "sinners" who have engaged in first rebuilding the M'lucha.

-- 
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
Mobile Post Efraim 44830
Israel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070610/18700a4e/attachment.html 

> On 6/6/07, Danny Schoemann <doniels@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Which doesn't quite match with YD 181:9 which says that the shiur of
> > the Paye is from the [top of the] forehead till the [top of the]
> > jawbone - and this entire width Lo Siga Bo Yad - shouldn't be touched.

On 6/7/07, Marty Bluke <marty.bluke@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have to take the shulchan aruch's words lo siga bo yad in the
> context of the overall sugya and the rishonim.

The phrase "lo siga bo yad" seems to have been coined by the Beis
Yosef - and there he clearly means as you say it does - not to narrow
the width of the Payes.

In the SA it less unambiguous. Proof is the Bach, who maintains that
it refers to the length - and quotes the SA as supporting proof!

> The Rambam seems to
> hold that Min Hatorah, you only violate the issur if you cut off all
> the hair, if you leave even 2 hairs you are not chayav.

The Tur, BY and Bach struggle to explain what precisely is the
Rambam's opinion along with his 4/40 hairs.

> However, Lo Siga Bo Yad is not meant to be taken literally that you
> cannot cut the hair at all. You can clearly cut the hair when it grows
> too long. What is the shiur of hair?

See above.
- According to the BY you may cut it not too short - as in "scissors
like a razor"
- According to the Bach you may cut it once it grows below the skull.
(As the BLY clearly says in the name of the Airzal, on the side of the
SA).

> In other areas of halacha
> (negaim) it is to bend back the hair on itself, therefore you can
> certainly cut the hair to a reasonably short length according to the
> Shulchan Aruch.

Correct, as per the BY and the SA. Not so obvious according to the
Bach's explanation of the SA.
According to the Bach, this would be one more place where the BY
contradicts the SA. This is not all that rare - as strange as that
sounds. (~2 decades ago I was in Kollel where we learnt Tur & SA in
the afternoons - and I noticed this phenomena every so often.)

This of course doesn't answer the original question of where
Yeshivishe Payes started...

- Danny

On 6/10/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> There is no mitzvah for an esrog or megillah to have a case, never
> mind a pretty one. And an artistic kesubah doesn't make the contract
> any more valid. Noi mitzvah is thus broader than hiddur mitzvah. (RYGB
> suggested here once that a wig is noi mitzvah in sei'ar be'ishah ervah,
> BTW.) Why assume it doesn't apply to lavin?

Having a pretty case for an esrog or megilla shows chibuv mitzvah.  Is
there an element of chibuv for lavim?  A kesuba is an interesting ra'aya.
Is a kesuba the cheftza of any mitzvah?  The mitzvos of eirusin and
nisu'in can both be accomplished without it.  I know there is a machlokes
whether kesuba is d'oraisa (learned out from "k'mohar habesulos" in
parshas oness) or d'rabbanan.  Is that referring to the shtar kesuba
itself, or just the 200 shekel payment?  If the shtar kesuba itself is,
according to some opinions, mandated min Hatorah, its beautification can
be explained just like the esrog case.  Even if not, I don't think that
the kesuba is about refraining from a lav, so it is no ra'aya for our
case.

Where does the halachic literature talk about noi mitzvah?  Is there any
precedent of noi mitzvah for lavim?  (RYGB's suggestion notwithstanding,
but a proof would be nice.)

KT,
Michael


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 135
***************************************

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..."