Avodah Mailing List
Volume 23: Number 215
Sat, 06 Oct 2007
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:06:28 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Weather and the Jewish Problem
On 10/3/07, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
>
> Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>
> > OTOH, in the USA I would consider this a matter of Hubris that due to
> > the Jews in the USA alone the entire weather pattern is magically
> > shlepped along.
>
> "Afilu sefinot habaot miGallia leAspamia einan mitbarchot ella
> bishvil Yisrael."
>
>
> --
>
That does not PROVE that weather in USA is a barometer of Jewish behavior
Otherwise Tamid Eini Hashem Elokecha BAH would apply tot he USA equally as
well as to Israel and obviate any meaning of that passuk.
--
Gmar Tov
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/20071003/bcf6f28f/attachment-0001.htm
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:09:30 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] mechitza [was: heter mechira produce]
On 10/3/07, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
>
> T613K@aol.com wrote:
>
> Having a mechitza in a shul is a "custom" in the same sense that having
> two sets of dishes is a "custom". Having two sets of dishes is only
> necessary if one eats both milk and meat at home, regularly enough that
> one needs dishes for them. If meat (or milk) never enters the home, or
> does so so rarely that it makes sense to use only disposables for it,
> then there's no need for two sets of dishes.
>
> AIUI before about the 16th century women rarely went to shul, so there
> was no need for shuls to be built with any sort of mechitza. Even today
> not every shul follows the "custom" of having a separate women's section;
> some shtieblach don't need one, because women rarely come. (As RMF
> writes, the practise in Lita was that even on those occasions when a
> woman or two did show up no mechitza was put up for them; it's only
> required if there are a lot of women, or if it happens regularly.)
>
> --
> Zev Sero
>
Rema mentiosn having an extra knife and marking milchig knives as a standard
for all so taht each house conforms to the same practice
There is NO mention of Mechita in Shulchan Aruch. That is problematic at
best. It does not mean ther is no answer. It does mean that no one codified
one.
--
Gmar Tov
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/20071003/624d9e0b/attachment-0001.html
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: saul mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:07:33 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Is it better to do a vaday mitzva...
The Encyclopedia Talmudit indeed cites the principle "chalitza b'makon yibum eina mitzvah" (regarding yibum for chayvei lavim), and then says "not that chalitza is not a mitzvah *at all* (kol ikkar), but it is not the preferred mitzva in the face of yibum." The footnote cites the Tashbetz. This is what I have been saying all along (before seeing it in the ET). It seems that some may disagree, but the quoted statement seems to be the predominant one.
In Kovetz Shiurim Ktuvot siman 214, REBWasserman hy"d brings a proof to each side of the question if chalitza is a matir, like get, or a mitzva kiyumit. He does not decide the issue.
It seems to me that even if chalitza is "only" a matir, the fact that in the 5 yavam case each yavam did chalitza ktikuna, and was matir his yevama (although indeed we do not know which one she is) constitutes enough of a mitzva to distinguish the yibum case from the one in which by following a certain procedure one may not be doing any mitzva at all, like going to a city with a shofar where there is a safek if one can get to on time, thus running the risk that no mitzva of any kind will be done.
Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071006/7911c3fe/attachment-0001.htm
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: saul mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:08:46 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] is it better to do a vaday mitzva
The Encyclopedia Talmudit indeed cites the principle "chalitza b'makon yibum eina mitzvah" (regarding yibum for chayvei lavim), and then says "not that chalitza is not a mitzvah *at all* (kol ikkar), but it is not the preferred mitzva in the face of yibum." The footnote cites the Tashbetz. This is what I have been saying all along (before seeing it in the ET). It seems that some may disagree, but the quoted statement seems to be the predominant one.
In Kovetz Shiurim Ktuvot siman 214, REBWasserman hy"d brings a proof to each side of the question if chalitza is a matir, like get, or a mitzva kiyumit. He does not decide the issue.
It seems to me that even if chalitza is "only" a matir, the fact that in the 5 yavam case each yavam did chalitza ktikuna, and was matir his yevama (although indeed we do not know which one she is) constitutes enough of a mitzva to distinguish the yibum case from the one in which by following a certain procedure one may not be doing any mitzva at all, like going to a city with a shofar where there is a safek if one can get to on time, thus running the risk that no mitzva of any kind will be done.
Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071006/48bc5936/attachment-0001.html
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: saul mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:13:39 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] How much Conformity to local Nusach/Mihag is
RRWolpoe wrote a list of questions about the relation of shatz and tzibbur, including
> Is a Shatz required to daven the minhag of the shul during his PIRVATE AMIDAH or his minhag Avos?
RMF requires the former. Many poskim disagree.
I have a related question
Is the shatz, in his silent SE, allowed to insert private petitions such as in refainu ? For those who hold like RMF, that the shatz's silent SE is essentially a preparation for his repetition for the tzibbur, such additions would seem to be improper, since obviously they are not repeated aloud. I am inclined to believe that the poskim who disagree with RMF on nusach would allow private petitions in the silent SE. Does anyone have sources on this matter?
Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071006/c7b11556/attachment-0001.htm
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 21:23:07 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] How much Conformity to local Nusach/Mihag is
On 10/6/07, saul mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>
>
>
> RRWolpoe wrote a list of questions about the relation of shatz and
> tzibbur, including
>
> > Is a Shatz required to daven the minhag of the shul during his PIRVATE
> AMIDAH or his minhag Avos?
>
> RMF requires the former. Many poskim disagree.
>
> Saul Mashbaum
>
AUI the Gmara requires that the Shatz's private Amidah be used to prepare
himself for thepublic amidah
Questions:
1. Should the Stha therefore say Birkas Koahinim in his private Amidah
2. kedushah?
3. [for ahkneaim] l'dor vador instead of v'ataon kadosh?
4. Korovos/piyyutim [including the nusahc for gesha/tal?
Or iow , how LITERALLY do we take this prvaite preparation? If none of the
above 4 added what's the harm doing one's Minhag Avos instead of Minhag
hamakom [since after all he is not literally prepdaring himself word for
word anyway?
--
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/20071006/311f2721/attachment.html
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 21:32:36 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Is it better to do a vaday mitzva... literalism
On 10/6/07, saul mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>
> The Encyclopedia Talmudit indeed cites the principle "chalitza b'makon
> yibum eina mitzvah" (regarding yibum for chayvei lavim), and then says "not
> that chalitza is not a mitzvah *at all* (kol ikkar), but it is not the
> preferred mitzva in the face of yibum."
>
Totally tangential !
This is conceptually similar to my point about michemes Reshus - Mah
matzinu that Chalizta is indeed RELATIVELY NOT a Mitzva but after all is a
Miztva in the context of an ABSOLUTE scale - similarly - Reshus may not mean
ABOSLUTELY peimitted but RELATIVELY permitted [viz.as compare to milchems
Chova/Mitzva] Same with mayyimr Rishonim being called Reshus vs. Mayyim
Ahcaronim etc.
And FWIW Most Ein bein's are not literal either - rather contextually
limited in scope and NOT exhasutive.
There is another concept in Basar bechalav were a statement "there is no
issur" is limited to the core Halacah but NOT to be construed as excluding
Mar'eis Ayin
Hazal were rarely highly literal. Applying highly iliteral standards are
mis-leading and often can lead to mis-perceptions of what is meant. Often
teh Gmara itself reformualtes statemnts wti h"hachi Ko'amar...
--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
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/20071006/597f9e51/attachment.htm
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 22:06:06 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Shmini Atzeret - why Sukkah YES and Lulav NO?
On 10/3/07, Yitzhak Grossman <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 12:45:41 GMT
> "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> Some Aharonim held that one must sleep in the Succah: the Beis Yosef,
> the Eliyahu Rabbah, the Bikkurei Ya'akov and most famously the Gra -
> see Sha'arei Zion 668:4
>
> > Akiva Miller
>
> Yitzhak
> --
AND the Kitzur SA!
--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
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/20071006/70cde83d/attachment.html
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:20:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] mechitza [was: heter mechira produce]
Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> On 10/3/07, *Zev Sero* <zev@sero.name <mailto:zev@sero.name>> wrote:
>> Having a mechitza in a shul is a "custom" in the same sense that having
>> two sets of dishes is a "custom". Having two sets of dishes is only
>> necessary if one eats both milk and meat at home, regularly enough that
>> one needs dishes for them. If meat (or milk) never enters the home, or
>> does so so rarely that it makes sense to use only disposables for it,
>> then there's no need for two sets of dishes.
>>
>> AIUI before about the 16th century women rarely went to shul, so there
>> was no need for shuls to be built with any sort of mechitza.
> Rema mentions having an extra knife and marking milchig knives as a
> standard for all so taht each house conforms to the same practice.
I think you're missing the point. The Rema doesn't mean there's some
sort of din that one *must* have two knives, even if one has no need
for them. One may have only a milchig one, or only a fleishig one,
and then there's no need to mark anything. But because it was common
in his day for people to eat both meat and milk at home, he mentions
the need for two knives; if it weren't common to have both kinds of
food at home, then there would have been no custom about having two
knives, and the Rema wouldn't have mentioned one. Then when people's
diet became more varied, and rabbonnim started saying that it was
necessary to have two knives, there would be those carping and saying
"why doesn't the SA or the Rema mention it"? And the answer would be
that if you want to live as they did, and only ever bring one kind of
food into the house, then you can follow the SA and Rema, and not have
two sets of dishes; otherwise you do.
And in the same way, it's not a din that a shul must have a mechitza -
so long as it's not the kind of shul where women go regularly.
> There is NO mention of Mechita in Shulchan Aruch. That is problematic
> at best. It does not mean ther is no answer. It does mean that no one
> codified one.
It just means that there was no need for it, because it wasn't common
for women to come to shul.
--
Zev Sero Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name interpretation of the Constitution.
- Clarence Thomas
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 22:53:01 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Why do Yekkes Wait 3 hours After Meat instead of 1
This were some highly useful points that emerged out of a LONG private
thread.
Background:
1. Tosafos/ BeHeG require NO waiting between meat and milk - except to
end 1 meal and to being another - totally subjective timing.
2. Rema codifies 1 hour. - though he RECOMMENDS [nachon] to wait 6.
3. Meharshal/Shach/Chochmas Adam,and others take anything less than 6
hours as some kind of major deviation against Halachah despite the fact that
yekkes were waiting 3 during that very same era and the Dutch only 1 [as per
Rema]. [Caveat Chochmas Adam is meikel in the case of illness to rely upon 1
hour.]
Avodah Colleague Michael Poppers then asked Me:
> I wonder if 3 is actually a chumra of 1-hr immigrants who immigrated to a
> 6-hr territory and justified 3 rather than 6 on the smaller gaps between
> meals in their way of life. What do you think?
>
> Tthe thought of being influenced by fellow Jews is something I just
> (relatively speaking) thought of; based on how YD 89 is explained, with the
> mandate to separate between meals and all that, I previously posited and
> still believe, as you note, that having three rather than two meals per day
> may have had an impact upon the practice to wait three rather than six
> hours
>
> All the best from --Michael Poppers
>
There are a number of answers. I personally have never factored in
immigration as one of them. It is a very good point to ponder.
More background:
1. The Hagahos Shaa'rei Dura - iirc - suggeststhat 1 hours is a mere
humra over the position of Tosafos.
2. Gra objects to this line of reasoning and cites the Zohar on
Mishpatim as requiring 1-hour bidirectionally.
Question: What is the source/origin for 3 hours?
Answers:
1. Rav Schwb ZTL held it was a humra based upon 1 hour.
2. Some say it is 6 hours using the very shortest Sha'os Z;maniyos
3. Some say it is averaging the zero [or perhaps 1] hour option with
the 6 hour option and getting 3 [or 3.5 rounded to 3].
Question: how did we get 6 any? [W/O going back to the Gmara]
1. Rambam talks about how long the meat lingers in the mouth before
dissolving from its state of "meatiness" due to digestive saliva.
2. Rashi talks about internal digestion of fats lingering for 6
hours..
3. Rif taking the Gmara a bit more literally waits between meals. He
then used the Talmudic model where the morning meal [app.11:00AM until
noon] and the evening meal [app.6:00 pm] as the boundaries based upon
societal standards. The Rif therefore suggests but does NOT codify 6 hours.
AFAIK It is the Rambam who is the first to use that magic number.
Ashkenazim tend to view things in a more sociological prism than others as
opposed to just using text. The Rif was basing himself upon a 2-meal a day
model. However, in parts of Ashkenaz the daily routine had evolved into a
3-day a meal plan. [I speculate that this was first manifest in Vienna - a
city that may have been the culinary capital of the world.]
Now you COULD stick to the Rif's model based upon Talmudic timing OR apply
the Rif CONCEPTUALLY to the idea of one SOCIETY-timed meal to the next.
[Tosafos had already taken the poistion of one PERSONAL SUBJECTIVE meal to
the next.] Therfore, since society was only waiting 3 hours between meals
the Rif implictly would require [approx.] a 3 hour wait after meat in a 3
meal-a-day society.
Bottom line: I see the Ashkenazic 3 hours as an application of the Rif's
principles to a different society.
[Caveat to my friend Jon Baker: No, I do not have any historical evidence
to support this. It is merely educated speculation. Michael Poppers
hypothesis about immigration may have been the historically correct
phenomenon.]
--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
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/20071006/397c9ac4/attachment.htm
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 215
***************************************
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..."