Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 202

Sat, 22 Sep 2007

• 1. Mysticism and rationalism (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 2. Rationalism and supernaturalism (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 3. Halizah (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 4. Re: Selichos - Especially before Midnight (R Davidovich)
• 5. Physical coercion (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 6. Re: Kanaus (Richard Wolpoe)
• 7. Re: Selichos - Especially before Midnight (Richard Wolpoe)
• 8. Re: Shofar and guf naki (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Re: Shofar and guf naki (Michael Poppers)

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 05:16:40 -0700 RAF wrote:

> Cognoscenti see in the Moreh Nevukhim a mystical system, too (in the third 

That may be the view of some, but is it the mainstream understanding?

> part). Tanakh specialists see mystical practices there. We cannot even 
> approach understanding certain mitzvot without assuming nonrational (but not 
> antirational), mystical ideas.

Again, some may believe that we cannot, but I submit that the Rambam,
and certainly the Ralbag, as well as many others, would maintain that
we most definitely can.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:55:51 -0700 RMB wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:59:04PM -0700, Eli Turkel wrote:
> : I contend that it goes way beyond hilchot yesodei haTorah. One example
> : is that Rambam outlaws "magic shows" as kishuf while others define kishuf
> : as being "real black magic" as opposed to sleight of hand. However, Rambam
> : could not hold this shita since on philosophical grounds he denies
> : the existence of real magic....
> 
> Which came first -- the chicken or the egg? Perhaps the Rambam's
> willingness to believe that all kishuf is trickery was because he had
> to explain why it would be assur otherwise.
> 
> After all, believing in actual magic would even have been proper
> Aristotilianism. Magic, astrology and alchemy weren't excluded from the
> realm of rationalism until enturies after the Rambam.

Astrology and perhaps alchemy weren't, and neither were certain forms
of divination, but what's your basis for extending that claim to magic
in general?

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:55:51 -0700 RMB wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 11:57:52AM +0300, saul mashbaum wrote:
> : I believe that this is not to be taken entirely literally. "Eino
> : mitzva" be "eino mitzva kol kach"; yibum is preferable to chalitza. The
> : monei hamitzvot count chalitza as one of the taryag mitzvot, and I am
> : unaware that there is a qualification "*only* if mitzvat yibum for some
> : reason yibum cannot be done".
> 
> Yibum is a mitzvah chiyuvis, chalitzah is qiyumis / materes.

What's your source for the assertion that Halizah is only kiyumis /
materes?  The Hinuch concludes his discussion of Yibum(598) with the
statement that:

ve'over al zeh ve'lo yibem yevimto, kelomar shelo ba aleha biah ahas
shehi ikar mizvas aseh zeh o she'lo patrah be'halizah, bitel aseh zeh

and his discussion of Halizah (599) with:

ve'over al zeh ve'lo razah le'yabem yevimto ve'lo la'haloz be'ro'a
le'vavo, bitel aseh zeh

They seem pretty parallel to me.  Additionally, the Minhas Hinuch (598)
writes (regarding Halizah):

zarich le'chavein la'zeis ye'dei ha'mizvah, ki hi mizvas aseh ve'hi
ke'kol ha'mizvos

> When yibum isn't an option -- either because she is his wife's sister,
> cheirem deR' Gershom, or because we are chosheshim like Abba Shaul
> of desires that make it ke'ein arayos -- that materes is a major
> chessed. Chalitzah is thus mandatory today (even though yibum qodemes),
> either an asei of chessed and/or a lav of hezeq.

Minor nitpick - one's wife's sister doesn't require Halizah.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

>
>
> From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Selichos - Especially before Midnight
>
> R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> > Rav Gelley has said many times that Breu'ers does not say
> > X or Y because their minhag pre-dates the inclusion of X
> > or Y into the Davening - IOW the minhag is older than Rema!
>
> I'd like to know how this works. At what point did the kehilah say "Today
> is the cutoff. Things we've added until now are okay, but no more new
> stuff."
>
> I ask this because it seems clear to me that they DO say some things which
> were added after Chasimas HaGemara. Like Slichos.
>
> Akiva Miller


 As RRW could tell you, Minhag Ashkenaz is not defined by Chasimas
Hagemara.  It is based to a far more tangible extent on the early geonic
minhagim they developed up until the globalization of European customs and
the input of the Zohar.  So selichos made the cut.

Raffy Davidovich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070921/6283fee8/attachment-0001.html 

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:16:20 -0700 RnCL wrote:

> 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.

For another striking example of "opinions out there that one might find
somewhat worrying to modern sensibilities", see my recent discussion of
Poskim who sanction torture in civil cases for the purpose of
extracting a confession.

http://bdl.freehostia.com/2007/08/20/torture/

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

I have heard this story and I LOVE this story
I have been searching an answer to this question:
What it is earliest source for this story?

----------------------------------------------------------
Some remarks, Recall my earlier posts re:

   - Moshe who prayed for Israel before rebuking them at the Ma'aseh
   ho'egel
   - and Shumel who prayed for Sha'ul before rebuking him re: Amaleik.

Discernment:
If one feels bad about having to do the kana'us [or the tochachaha], yet
nevertheless one still feels it is the right thing to do or a necessary but
regretable "evil", then it is probably well--intentioned.
But; if one ENJOYS kana'us [or tochachah] then it is probably not lishmah.

Re: Tochacha that is Rav S. Schwab's point re: "lechishsan lechichas
nachash." It is a joyless bite.
I would guess he would have felt the same about Kana'us,, too.!

[Kana'us - Zealotry; Tochechah - Rebuke]

Kesiva vaChasima Tova
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/


On 9/21/07, Yitzhak Grossman <celejar+ynet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 05:16:40 -0700 RDE wrote:
>
> > The Shomer Emunim Rebbe told me that according to  Derech Mitzvosecha
> > that one can only be a kanoi if it doesn't provide pleasure or
> excitement.
>
> There's a story I love about a certain Rav [0], famous as a vehement
> zealot, who once reprimanded someone for excessive zealotry.  When
> asked, "But you, too, are known as a great zealot?", he responded with
> a parable:  A housewife imports a cat to rid her house of mice; both
> the woman and the cat have the same goal of eliminating the vermin, but
> the woman would ideally prefer that there be no infestation in
> the first place, while the cat is delighted to have rodents to chase.
> That's the distinction between us, said the Rav;  in my ideal world
> there would be no profanation of the glory of Heaven, while you live
> for the joy of battle ...
>
> I'm not sure how accurate my rendition of the anecdote is, but there's a
> greater truth here even if the details are incorrect.  [It should go
> without saying, but for the record, I *in no way* mean by that to
> sanction the use of falsehoods in the service of truth.]
>
> [0] I'm not sure of the identity of the protagonist, but I think he was
> a prominent Hassidic figure.
>
> Yitzhak
> --
> Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
> An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070921/bc8553c4/attachment.htm 

On 9/20/07, kennethgmiller@juno.com <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
>
> R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> > Rav Gelley has said many times that Breu'ers does not say
> > X or Y because their minhag pre-dates the inclusion of X
> > or Y into the Davening - IOW the minhag is older than Rema!
>
> I'd like to know how this works. At what point did the kehilah say "Today
> is the cutoff. Things we've added until now are okay, but no more new
> stuff."
>
> I ask this because it seems clear to me that they DO say some things which
> were added after Chasimas HaGemara. Like Slichos.
>
> Akiva Miller
>
>
Breuer's STILL adds/changes stuff and has made changes to both Nusach and
melodies over the years.

I have a post about modifying a kitchen in a  Frank Lloyd Wright home -
which is a classic but stuck with a 1950's kitchen.  The art/science of
change in a place like Breuer's about being consistent and in harmony with
the various shitos it has adopted over the years

That is why the "lesheim Yichud" 's in the Roedlehim IMHO have no place
being there. They are inconsistent and wer eprobably borrowed from
elsewhere.  E.G. Years ago we discussed how the Kaddish Derabban  got a
"le'chayyim tovim" in the yehei Shlama. This is NOT taive to Ashkenaz, it's
an import.

Similarly, When the Alter Rebbe of Chabad did his Siddur AL PI ARIZAL he did
NOT follow the Ari blindly-  rather he  modified nusach Ashkenaz according
to Lurianic principles!

When you master the principles of the German Minhag you would know HOW and
WHEN to make those modfications.   Anyone who understands Breuers would
realize why reading Zeicher and Zecher both on Zachor would NEVER fit that
model. [{See R. Moredcai Breuer's A"H arrtcile on Zeicher/Zecher] .

Heidenhim, Baer, and RSR Hirsch, and others all published Siddurim and/or
Machachazorim.  There is even diversity in yekke land.

Aslo See Artscrol on Yamim Norai' re: l'eila 'eila vs le'ila Ul'eila.
Dikduk seesm to dicatate no OO  sound. OTOH the Mahayil's own writings
support this read. The roedlehim takes the literal read of the Mharyl OVER
the dikduk based revision.  This revision is strongly suported by BOTH
Mishna Brura and Birnbaum [a strange set of fellows indeed!] byut not by the
old source texts.


In most American Congregations, there is no consistent shita, so changes go
in willy-nilly.[FWIW I don't see Artscroll as 100% consistent either thought
they USUALLY follow Rema in the text.}  E.G. A congregation in Teaneck
LOOSELY follows the GRA and RYD but is clearly inconsistent. During my first
Shabbos in this shul: I asked the Rabbi
Q: "How come yo skip Baruch hashem l'olam in Arbis of weekdays but say
v'shamru on Shabbas!"
A:  "What do you want from me? I came to this shul with this and I am stuck
with these minhaggim."


The idea of Hasima imho is a popular but false myth.  There is a period of
diversity and debate and the dialetic gets resolved.  E.G. Tefillin deRashi
vs. Derabbeinu Tam.  After the issue is settled a precedent is set,
regardless of hasimas hatalmud etc.  Differing Halachic precedents get set
at different times.

Later on, revisionists come in and "stir the pot". E.G. The matter of Baruch
Hsheim L'olam in Arbis.  The Ga'onim added it and Ashkenazim did for
600-900  years w/o much debate. Only later on did it become problematic.
[FWIW the Gra did not prohibit this he jsut personalyl moitted it whilst his
Minyan recited it. see Ma'sev harav iirc.] Standing for Asseres hadibros is
another.  The original lminhag is quite cogent and it has bee nrevised, But
IMHO the revisions are a trade-off and while PERHAPS solving some problems
they arguably create an equal number of new ones [see the wonderful
sefer "Minhag
Avoseinu beyadeinu"

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/20070921/f92d27ab/attachment.html 

On 9/21/07, Dov Kay <dov_kay@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <<I'm not 100% sure but I would suspect that the GRA would say to say
> Birkas
> Hatorah ASAP in the morning after Netillas Yadayim etc.  A lot of siddurim
> these days have
> Yadayim
> Asher Yatzar
> E.lopkai Hnesham
> & Birkkas  Hatorah
> as the first thing in the morning. I figure it is al pi the GRA>>
>
> I don't think so, because the Siddur HaGra and the Siddur Ezor Eliyahu,
> which is fairly authoritative as far as the minhagei GRA are concerned,
> put
> birchos haTorah after birchos hashachar and immediately before korbonos,
> which makes the most sense, because it puts mikra, mishna and gemara (ie
> parshas Tamid, Eizehu mekoman and Rabbi Yishmael) straight after the
> birchos
> haTorah.  I believe that this is also old minhag Ashkenaz.  I think the
> Chabad Tehilllas HaShem also follows this order, but could be wrong there.
>
> You may be correct, however, that the rationale for the common custom
> nowadays is the concern any p'sukim or asiyas mitzvos prior to birchos
> haTorah is inappropriate.
>
> G'mar tov
> Dov Kay
>
>
I am aware of theSiddur Hagra.
It is IMHO completely inconsistent with the GRA's own shita.

E.G. Do yo say Mah Tovu going intno shul or not?
According to these 2 models the ONLY possible resolution is to say all of
karbanos etc. BEFORE entering shul.

Rema holods that Mah Topva is a Techina. So it  -and any Tehilim MAY be said
BEFORE Birkas HaTorah

The GRA would have a problem with E.G. Hanosein Laya'eif Koach as a quote
from a Passuk!

Also saying Shema after Ashreinu mah tov chlkeinu fails the GRA test.

Breuer's al pi Hatur has Birkas Hatorah AFTER this Shema. It is also IMHO
highly problematic if you follow R. Yehuda Hachsid's take on saying Barcu
hSehm levod Malchus or if you follow Meharshal and say first paragraph
i.ev'ahavto].

But the other p'sukkim can be written off as techinos
Since Breuer's techincally puts on Tefillin after karbanos, Therefore the
"Kadesh li" etc. is NOT a problem - although they don't say it anyway.

If you put on Tefillin and say Kadesh Li before Birkas Hatorah you have a
real problem. Is this to be construed as Techina? I doubt the Rema would say
yes.  But the Artscroll has it there anyway

BEH after yamim tovim I will start posting Hassagos on Nusach hatefilalh in
general  and point out countless inconsistencies, most minor some major.

The Advantage of Heidnhheim, Ya'avetz and Birnbabum is that ONE person sat
down and compiled a consistent set of litrugy.  The GRA's minhaggim were
probably never written by the GRA and present a whole range of attributions
to the GRA that  IMHO are contradictory.  R. Chayim Volozhiner finds 2 in
his  haskama to Ma'aseh Rav, one of them is ZECHER and his hassaga goes
ignored anyway in many circles.

So I am NOT accuing the GRA of being inconsistent, but I frnakly tend to
discount all kinds of thing ATRIBUTED to the GRA because they conflict other
things attributed to him.

Example.,What is the GRA's official position re:  SHMA as divrei Torah or
not legabie Birkas Hatorah?

   - GRA #1 it is and you MSUT say the Birkas Hatorah FIRST before Shema
   or else
   - GRA #2 it is NOT and if you say Shema during its zeman your birkas
   Ahahava Rabba will not anc cannot substitute for Birkas Hatorah unless you
   learn OTHER Torah, the Shema is not enough to be yotzei!

So I take things said in the name of the GRA with a grain of salt. I assuem
the Bei/'ur hagra on Birkas Hatorah is more authoritative of the GRA's
position than the Ma'aseh Rav or the Siddur HaGra, but that is just my
assumption. Why?  Because I find the Ma'seh Harav really problematic on some
items; whilst the Bei'ur haGRA seems better documented.

But then again the Shulchan Aruch Hara argues with the Siddur  of the Alter
Rebe and the Siddur is more authoritative in Chabad circles as Basrai. But
since I am a misnagged, I hold MORE from the Rav's SA  then his Siddur since
I do not do Minhag Chabad anyway, and his SA is  based upon Magen Avraham
etc.

Likewise perhaps those who do not follow Minhag GhGRA like the Bei'ur better
[e.g. I] and those who follow his Minhag follow the Siddur and the Ma'aseh
Rav.




-- 
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/20070921/da9571cb/attachment.htm 

In Avodah Digest V23#201, RDK responded to RRW:
> the Siddur HaGra and the Siddur Ezor Eliyahu, which is fairly
authoritative as far as the minhagei GRA are concerned, put
birchos haTorah after birchos hashachar and immediately before korbonos,
which makes the most sense, because it puts mikra, mishna and gemara (ie
parshas Tamid, Eizehu mekoman and Rabbi Yishmael) straight after the
birchos haTorah.  I believe that this is also old minhag Ashkenaz.... <
I believe that RDK is correct on that last point.  (I can't speak, however,
for what the GRA advocated.)

G'mar tov and all the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070921/04e63c4c/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 202
***************************************

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..."