Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 198

Wed, 19 Sep 2007

• 1. Shehecheyanu for shmitta (Gershon Dubin)
• 2. Re: Trying to understand the rationale for Pas Yisroel when eating an Oreo (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: Trying to understand the rationale for Pas Yisroel when eating an Oreo (Danny Schoemann)
• 4. Re: slichos hayom (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. Maariv or Arvis (RallisW@aol.com)
• 6. Re: Maariv or Arvis (Richard Wolpoe)
• 7. NishmaBlog : Why Do Some Yekkes wash BEFORE Kiddush? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 8. Re: Selichos - Especially before Midnight (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Re: slichos hayom (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 10. Re: Shmittah (Arie Folger)
• 11. Selichos - especially before midnight (Dov Kay)
• 12. shofar and guf naki (Dov Kay)
• 13. Re: lifnei iver/kanaus (Chana Luntz)
• 14. Re: lifnei iver/kanaus (Akiva Blum)

From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>

<<Given: Shmittas kesafim takes place at the END of the Shmittah year
Q1: WHEN we would say this shehecheyanu?    Would we say the shehecheyanu at
the beginning of the year or at the end?>>

As R"H comes in, similar to how we say Shehecheyanu on Yom Kippur.  Being doche it to kiddush doesn't mean it's not on the Yom Tov;  the Gemara paskens that you say it afilu beshuk if you missed saying it with kiddush/at the beginning of Y"T.

Bottom line, it's a kedusha that is chal with the advent of that day (R"H) so the beracha is appropriate.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

RAY wrote:
> But when eating an Oreo, or any other commercial type of product, what is
> the rationale that it should be Pas Yisroel?

That is why Tosafos advances the hetter of pat nachtom.

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

R' Akiva Miller wrote:

<quote>
This leads me to a question that has bothered me for a long time, and
which is hinted at in RAY's question: Why are Oreos exempted from
being Pas Akum?

This time of year, various publications remind us to eat only Pas
Yisroel. Many of them point of that these halachos apply to both Pas
Lechem and also to Pas Habaa Bkisnin. The would indicate that the
original gezera of Pas Yisroel applied to both categories. But it
seems to me that cake and cookies are not an essential food the way
bread is. And I can't imagine that they were *ever* such an essential
food. So when the people put their foot down, and said, "No! This is
going too far! We can't do it!", did they really reject this halacha
for cookies too?

</quote>

The source of this seems to be in Yerushalmi, Shevi'is, Ch.8, Hal' 4.
It's the sugya of "Im'um"; the 4 gezeiros that were ratified/ambiguous.
You can hear RYGB give shiur on it at
http://www.yerushalmionline.org/audio/097.mp3 - starting at 1:30:00
with the Pas Akum starting at 1:33:40

- Danny (whose pre-Daf-Yomi Mishna shiur happened to be up to there tonight.)

On 9/18/07, Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org> wrote:
>
>
> someone in shul worried that we are saying the wrong day slichos [ ie
> today yom shlishi shel 10 yemei tshuva], since tzom gdalia was nidche.  i
> have never heard of flipping the order for this reason [as opposed to
> rvii/chmishi which flip in some minhagim to coincide 13 middos with
> mon/thurs.   on the other hand, hoshanos order depends on  the start day of
> yom tov.   anyone aware of a minhag of this sort?
>
> **


I have heard of people doing this, but aiui they are mistaken. Mah li
Sahbbos Before Selichos mah li Shabbos Bein Selichos?!  OTOH The Slichos are
flip-flopped on revi'i/hamishi by some communites to  force the  13 middos
onto a Monday or Thursday.  However, the fact that Tzom Gedalyah is a nidche
has no impact per se.  Once the Tzom Gedlayha is said the selihcos is
k'seder with the one exemption noted above.


-- 
Kesiva vaChasima Tova
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070918/2cb8f7df/attachment.html 

I was taught in school that, Ashkenazim called the Evening tefillo Maariv,  
and that Sephardim called that tefillo Arvis. Lately though I have seen that  
among some Yekkes, who refer to it as Arvis. Is this a recent change,  because 
of those who live in Eretz Yisroel? BTW in Yekkish siddurim it  is refered to 
as Maariv?
 
L'Shono Tovoh T'chosaym! 



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070918/3d59d342/attachment.htm 

On 9/18/07, RallisW@aol.com <RallisW@aol.com> wrote:
>
>  I was taught in school that, Ashkenazim called the Evening tefillo
> Maariv, and that Sephardim called that tefillo Arvis. Lately though I have
> seen that among some Yekkes, who refer to it as Arvis. Is this a recent
> change, because of those who live in Eretz Yisroel? BTW in Yekkish siddurim
> it is refered to as Maariv?
>
> L'Shono Tovoh T'chosaym!
>
>
> AIUI Arvis or Arbis or Arbit is the more formal name corresponding to
Shachris.
Ma'ariv is a nick-name.

Simlarly the 3rd book of Moses is formally known as Toras Kohanim and
informally as vayikra.


-- 
Kesiva vaChasima Tova
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070918/a679c0b2/attachment.html 

Richard Wolpoe has sent you a link to a blog:

Washing Before Kiddush

Blog: NishmaBlog
Post: Why Do Some Yekkes wash BEFORE Kiddush?
Link:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2007/09/why-do-some-yekkes-wash-before-kiddush.html

--
Powered by Blogger
http://www.blogger.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070918/99b44289/attachment.htm 

Bottom Line:
I am a bit of a pragmatist.
I do get that the ideal time for Selichos is just before dawn, but few of us
actually say Selichos at that hour either.

Every option one poses, presents a compromise on SOME level.
E.G. if you say Selichos before a 7:00 AM Minyan you are probably going to
have to rush it through in order for people get to work. What a Trade-off!
Does eis ratzon really present a net gain over the probable loss when
hurrying through the 13 middos!

And as far as I can see this is NOT a matter of compromising some great
Halachic principle.
Nevertheless, the facts are:  Virtually zero Poskim see it that way so I am
confined to being a voice crying out:  "In the Desert!"

This is all odd to me because I have witnessed  greater leniencies, for less
compelling reasons, regarding stricter Halachic principles.


-
Kesiva vaChasima Tova
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070918/277c2070/attachment.html 

R' Saul Newman asked:
> someone in shul worried that we are saying the wrong day
> slichos [ ie today yom shlishi shel 10 yemei tshuva], since
> tzom gdalia was nidche.

If that is a problem *this* year, then it is a problem *every* year.

I say that because there is always a Shabbos during this week, and we never rearrange the days to compensate for it.

For example, suppose RH was on Tues and Weds. So we say the slichos for Tzom Gedalya on Thurs, and the slichos for "Second day of AYT" on Friday. Then, the slichos for "Third day of AYT" is nidche from Shabbos to Sunday. Is that person worried about this? I doubt it.

In other words, AISI, this is *not* a problem.

Akiva Miller

> Zev Sero writes (in Areivim) about the heter mechirah: "And one test [as to
> whether it was a real sale] is how the sellers would react if at the end of
> the year the Arab showed up with a bank cheque for 71.5 billion shekel,
> drawn on the central bank of Saudi Arabia, and refused to sell the land
> back." While this sounds reasonable as a test, is there any source that
> says that this is a test to determine if a sale is real or a sham according
> to halacha?

I would like to share the following story with the chevrah: the ancestor of 
one of our members had a mill. Before Pessach, he sold the mill cheaply to a 
non Jew. Obviously, he didn't yet know about only selling the chametz in it, 
and so he sold it (R'nTK, watch how I learn) lock, stock and barrel. After 
Pessach, the non-Jewish buyer refused to sell it back. The poor man, 
destitute, bereft of his livelihood, could not take the pain and committed 
suicide.

While he didn't have to sell the hardware, clearly that sale was a real sale. 
That story, however, should illustrate one aspect of a real sale, that the 
price is realistic. Selling the land without the slightest appraisal, for a 
peruttah, seems like an asmachta. I hope and expect that the Chief Rabbinate 
of Israel conducts at least some crude appraisal.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

<<What DOES make sense to me is that if you removed ALL Qabblistic sources
there is AFAIK zero Halachic considerations for not saying Selichos earlier
than Midnight.>>

But that arch-rationalist, the Rambam, states that one should rise in the 
night and say selichos, to finish them with daybreak.  The Gemara itself 
refers to certain times as being more propitious than others, and these 
references cannot simply be dismissed as kabbalistic as opposed to halachic.

The Rambam's reference to "rising at night" leads me to surmise that the 
early rising, and the discomfort that comes with it, is part of the process. 
  The Rambam didn't need to tell me when to rise if his intention was merely 
to convey the z'man for selichos.

I think R. Wolpoe's arguments raise the larger question of what weight 
should be given to kabbalistic practices.  It seems to me some of these 
practices have become so enmeshed in our custom and sifrei poskim that ARE 
halacha and cannot be dismissed, except perhaps by those Teimanim who never 
adopted these practices to start with.  No-one, for instance, rejects 
practices prescribed by the Talmud on the basis that could only have had a 
mystical rationale.  This probably also applies to practices prescribed by 
the Shulchan Oruch, eg putting on the right shoe before the left.  I concede 
that this is no yeharog v'al yaavor, but would you argue that it is not 
halacha at all?

G'mar chasima tovah
Dov Kay

_________________________________________________________________
Get Pimped! FREE emoticon packs from Windows Live -  
http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk

<<>From the lengthy footnotes, it seems that the problem is that having 
kavana for
the mitzva is a form of thinking divrei Torah.>>

This argument is problematic, because it would mean that according to the 
Vilna Gaon, that hirhurei Torah are forbidden before birchos haTorah, it 
would be forbidden to do any mitzvas aseh before birchos haTorah, which is a 
problem for those who put on their tallis/tefillin before saying b'rochos, 
which is the common custom.

I think that shofar question is dependent on the chakira (discussed in R. 
Frank's Mikro'ei Kodesh) whether shome'a k'oneh works by putting the shome'a 
in the same position as the shatz/tokeah (ie as if the shome'a had said the 
words), or merely by transferring the kiyum mitzva created by the 
amira/tekiah to the shome'a.

Kol tuv
Dov Kay

_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here!  http://www.newhotmail.co.uk

RAB writes:

> Lo yosif pen yosif is a lo taaseh even hitting alone without 
> any damage. What would then be, according to your analasis, 
> the heter to hit the student.

Well it is not my heter - after all the right to hit a student, at least
with a retzua katana, is enshrined in the Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah
siman 245 si'if 10.  And the Rambam in hilchos talmid torah perek 2
halacha 2 specifically says that one should hit the talmidim so as to
put fear upon them (albeit with a retzua katana and not with shotim).
You would thus have to say that the reference in Mishlei to sparing the
rod is an asmachta, as we do not learn halacha like this out from
ksuvim, but one does have to acknowledge its existence and the existence
of sources that specifically allow for the hitting of talmidim.  


In more general terms, the issue about the permitted use of physical
force in the face of issur within the halacha is clearly a complicated
one (as well as being one that is foreign to modern sensibilities) but
it does seem clear that prima facie, hitting somebody, as in giving
makos, is to be regarded as a mitzvah, with the issur specified in the
Torah being to be "yosif" - ie to hit *more* than is permitted (eg to
hit more than the 40 makos allowed for in the Torah), not that it is an
issur to hit at all.  And the sources I quoted above vis a vis the
talmid seem to work within this framework. There is unquestionably a
right to hit, but not too much (inter alia the piskei teshuva there in
Yoreh Deah brings a case of a rav having to pay nezikin for having hit
too much, but it is not disputed that he has the right to hit at all).



Even more generally, there are opinons out there that one might find
somewhat worrying to modern sensibilities, but I am not sure we should
pretend they do not exist.  For example the Rema states in Choshen
Mishpat Siman 421 si'if 13 "v'chen mi shehu tachas reshuto v'roeh bo
shehu oseh d'var averah rashai l'hachuso v'lyissuro cde l'hefrusho
m'isur v'ain tzarich l'hevio l'beis din (trumas hadeshen siman 18)"  He
also brings a linked statement in Even Haezer siman 154 si'if 3 as a
yesh omrim (and then brings an alternative opinion that it is absolutely
forbidden), but I am afraid he then goes on to say that the first
opinion is the ikar.

 
> Shelo yehei gufo choviv mimomono is a svara. The ptur is 
> based on the svara. Where the svara doesn't apply, the 
> heter/ptur falls apart. All the punishments in the Torah are 
> not svaras. They are gzerot hamakom.

If you assume that it is a svara, then you have two choices. Either you
say that the various heterim regarding hitting a talmid and more general
hitting in order to separate from averah are also gzerot hamakom (based
on pen yosif) in which case you cannot use the sevarah shelo yehe gufo
choviv mimamono, or you say that they too allow application of the
svarah, in which case you have certainly opened the floodgates even
wider than the Rema would have seemed to.  At the very least you appear
to be saying that according to the Rambam a rav may steal from a talmid
in order to create fear!

> > Or, for that matter - if we can push aside the issur of gezel for
>    >the mitzvah of chinuch of a talmid, why cannot we push 
> aside the issur
>    >of gezel so that the rav can take the talmid's lulav so 
> as to fulfil his
>    >mitzvah with it -both only involving the taking for a 
> very short time?
>    >Why is this different?
> 
> Because it remains the property of the talmid. I don't why 
> the rav couldn't use it on the second day.

You hold a lulav hagozel is mutar on the second day?  I don't think the
Mishna or the Shulchan Aruch (see Orech Chaim siman 649 si'if 1) agrees
with you (kol arba minim poslim b'gozel or b'gonav)!

And earlier RDB writes:
 
> That one must make quick calculations is evidenced by the 
> fact that if he can save the Nirdaf B;Echad MeiEivarav of the 
> Rodef, and he does not do so, killing him instead, he is a 
> Shofech Damim.

But the kind of calculations we are discussing are of a completely
different nature to the one you refer to here.  To demonstrate this most
easily, I would point out that secular legal systems (such as English
law) require the ordinary non Jew in the street to make an equivalent
quick calculation regarding the use of force.  Only "reasonable" force
can be used, and like the halacha, if one can save the nirdaf only by
injuring one if his limbs, one is not permitted to kill him.

However a calculation as to the relative weight of halachic issurim is
not something that a secular legal system could expect an average non
Jew in the street to do.  Nor could the halacha expect it of your
average Jew, because for that you need to be a talmid chacham.  In
situations where one has time, it is reasonable to expect a person to
consult a talmid chacham even if they are not one, but in a case such as
where one is attempting to save someone from a rodef, that kind of time
is not available and hence a person can not and should not be penalised
for not being able to make such calculations.  All a person needs to
know is that they need to act reasonably and proportionately.
 


> GCT
> 
> Akiva


 Regards

Chana

   >> Lo yosif pen yosif is a lo taaseh even hitting alone without 
   >> any damage. What would then be, according to your analasis, 
   >> the heter to hit the student.
   >
   >Well it is not my heter - after all the right to hit a student, at least
   >with a retzua katana, is enshrined in the Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah
   >siman 245 si'if 10.  And the Rambam in hilchos talmid torah perek 2
   >halacha 2 specifically says that one should hit the talmidim so as to
   >put fear upon them (albeit with a retzua katana and not with shotim).

Yes, yes. I mean according to your analysis that chinuch shouldn' be able to overide any lo ta'aseh, it should follow that a rav can never hit a talmid - and that isn't true as you have well shown.

   >Even more generally, there are opinons out there that one might find
   >somewhat worrying to modern sensibilities, but I am not sure we should
   >pretend they do not exist.  For example the Rema states in Choshen
   >Mishpat Siman 421 si'if 13 "v'chen mi shehu tachas reshuto v'roeh bo
   >shehu oseh d'var averah rashai l'hachuso v'lyissuro cde l'hefrusho
   >m'isur v'ain tzarich l'hevio l'beis din (trumas hadeshen siman 18)"  He
   >also brings a linked statement in Even Haezer siman 154 si'if 3 as a
   >yesh omrim (and then brings an alternative opinion that it is absolutely
   >forbidden), but I am afraid he then goes on to say that the first
   >opinion is the ikar.
   >

Why does this trouble you. One might be justified arguing that in the 21st century it would be largely  inaffective. Or that it's a dangerous slope. But surely fom a moral standpoint, his longterm welfare is of paramount importance.


   >> Shelo yehei gufo choviv mimomono is a svara. The ptur is 
   >> based on the svara. Where the svara doesn't apply, the 
   >> heter/ptur falls apart. All the punishments in the Torah are 
   >> not svaras. They are gzerot hamakom.
   >
   >If you assume that it is a svara, then you have two choices. Either you
   >say that the various heterim regarding hitting a talmid and more general
   >hitting in order to separate from averah are also gzerot hamakom (based
   >on pen yosif) in which case you cannot use the sevarah shelo yehe gufo
   >choviv mimamono, or you say that they too allow application of the
   >svarah, in which case you have certainly opened the floodgates even
   >wider than the Rema would have seemed to.  At the very least you appear
   >to be saying that according to the Rambam a rav may steal from a talmid
   >in order to create fear!
   >

Not steal. If there is a heter to confiscate, then absolutely, why not?  It's far better than hitting, especially if one has "modern sensibilities".

   >> > Or, for that matter - if we can push aside the issur of gezel for
   >>    >the mitzvah of chinuch of a talmid, why cannot we push 
   >> aside the issur
   >>    >of gezel so that the rav can take the talmid's lulav so 
   >> as to fulfil his
   >>    >mitzvah with it -both only involving the taking for a 
   >> very short time?
   >>    >Why is this different?
   >> 
   >> Because it remains the property of the talmid. I don't why 
   >> the rav couldn't use it on the second day.
   >
   >You hold a lulav hagozel is mutar on the second day?  I don't think the
   >Mishna or the Shulchan Aruch (see Orech Chaim siman 649 si'if 1) agrees
   >with you (kol arba minim poslim b'gozel or b'gonav)!
   >

Again, not stolen. Once it is mutter to confiscate, the rav is a shoel/shomer.


GCT

Akiva



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 198
***************************************

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..."