Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 225

Thu, 11 Oct 2007

• 1. Re: lifnei iver/kanaus (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: "Es Yom HaShmini Ho'Atzeres Hazeh" (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 3. Re: "Es Yom HaShmini Ho'Atzeres Hazeh" (Simon Montagu)
• 4. Re: "Es Yom HaShmini Ho'Atzeres Hazeh (D&E-H Bannett)
• 5. "Es Yom HaShmini Ho'Atzeres Hazeh" (RallisW@aol.com)
• 6. Re: Zman Sinchaseinu Redux - An interesting Rema (Simon Montagu)
• 7. Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Mussaf (Doron Beckerman)
• 8. THE I.R.S.O. AUDIT (R Wolberg)
• 9. Re: Tea before Shacharis (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Re: Vayoel Moshe- misrepresntations (Arie Folger)
• 11. Re: Vayoel Moshe- misrepresntations (SBA)

On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 01:10:22AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: The Talmud/SA tells us that we may not hit a child past a certain age [15
: iirc] because he might hit you back and you would thereby trangress lifnei
: iver...on an issur of misas beis din no less.

Might, not probably.

Think of the gezeirah against blowing shofar on Shabbos. Takanos do not
require a very high threshold of probability.

: Granted, that there are exceptions, neverthless I would posit that corporal
: punishment has not worked effectively [as a rule] for about 2,000 years or
: more.

OTOH, there are many statements permitting and even advising the use
of punishment. Not to mention the words of Mishlei, except according to
RSWolbe's daas yachid.

:        Anyone learning "Elu hein Halokin will notice that the way malkus is
: practiced it is more about shaming, embarrassing, and stimgatizing, then
: about inflicting physical pain.

Then why did you need a doctor to check if he could survive the next
three?

In any case, what I said about the role of the stick (as opposed to
the carrot) changing in the course of the Enlightenment through the
establishment of the US and rights-based gov't through the Me Decade
etc... stands whether the punishment in question is corporeal or some
other painful experience.

Even the 19th cent Oust Yudden responded more constructively to punishment
than we do today. It's important to keep in mind when reading Tenu'as
haMussar. To my mind, this element is the key issue over which mussar
evolved from RYS to Novoradok to Slabodka. The theory fit the needs of
students of those decades.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

<There are several problems with the Rema and with your  analogies.  
First of all, there are three holidays referred to as  Atzeret.  One is to the seventh day of Pesach.  Another is  Shavuot.  The third is Shmini Atzeret.  The first two are definitely  in the category of CHAG.  So if nothing else, we have a gezera shava  "atzeret - atzeret" to include Shmini Atzeret as a chag.

Second, if you look in Parashat Pinchas, where all of the  chaggim and their respective korbanot are listed, in the last item (Eighth  Day...) it says:  Bayom Hashmini (stop) Atzeret ti'yeh  lachem....
Since this pasuk is part of the listing of all of the chaggim,  obviously Atzeret is the name of this holiday of the eighth day.
This is also why I believe that those who say Shmini Chaga  Hatzeret Hazeh are more correct than those who say  Shmini Atzeret HaChag Hazeh.>

     (1) The Torah nowhere refers to Shavuos as "atzeres." It is the Talmud which does, and which uses the unmodified term to refer exclusively to Shavuos.   

     (2) The fact that the seventh day of Pesach is both atzeres and chag need not imply that the same is true for Succos. See, e.g., the N'tziv's Ha'ameik Davar in D'varim 16:8, where he explains why the term is used for sh'vi'i shel Pesach. Thus, the pasuk in Pinchas does _not_ prove that Atzeres is the name of the chag; it shows that it is an _attribute_ of the day, just as it is an attribute of sh'vi'i shel Pesach. [The N'tziv also explains that Shavuos is an atzeres to Pesach, in that mattan Torah was the culmination of y'tzias Mitzrayim, and is therefore so referred to by Chazal.]

     (3) In Re'eh, the only place where all three r'galim are referred to as chagim, the Torah says "Chag haSuccos ta'aseh l'cha shivas yamim," and there is no mention of sh'mini at all. (Ironically, this is the k'riah of Shmini Atzeres in chutz la'aretz.)

     (4) That sh'mini is not chag is seen even more forcefully in Nechemiah 8:18 -- "Vaya'asu chog shivas yamim; uvayom hash'mini, atzeres kamishpat."

EMT
 

On 10/11/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
>
> But otherwise, we accept that lo signov is limited to geneivas nefashos
> because that's the only way TBSK and the din via TSBP miSinai fit
> together.
>

It's interesting that the professor of Biblical Hebrew when I was at Oxford,
who was not Jewish and certainly had no interest whatever in TBSP, was
insistent that geneivat nefashot was peshat in aseret hadibrot.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071011/d5caf4cf/attachment-0001.htm 

Three examples were pointed out that a day following a 
holiday is called atzeret.

This gives another possible version: yom hashimini, - 
'atzeret hachag hazeh, i.e., the atzeret of the chag, 
sukkot. (IIRC, this is a suggestion of R' Shlomo Zevin in 
one of his books.)

David 

Rabbi Wax's response:
 
I assume that AISI, as it came thru is a Hebrew that my  computor could not 
read, and I assume it is Atzeret.  Granted Shavuot is  atzeret only in rabbinic 
usagae, but the reference of Atazeret in Pesach is  certainly biblical.  I 
will examine the rest of your words later when i  have more time.  In the 
meantime, can you send me transliteration of any  terms that you sent in Hebrew 
letters?  Thanks.
 
 
 
 
 
There are several  problems with the Rema and with your analogies.  
First of all, there  are three holidays referred to as  Atzeret.  One is to 
the  seventh day of Pesach.  Another is  Shavuot. 




WADR this is a red-herring  argument. The Rema is specifically referring to 
Biblical Terminology; while  Atzeret as referring to Shavuos appears NOWHERE in 
Humash because it is of  rabbincal usage only.





 
The third is Shmini  Atzeret.  The first two are definitely in the category 
of CHAG.  So  if nothing else, we have a gezera shava "atzeret - atzeret" to 
include Shmini  Atzeret as a chag.
Second, if you look in  Parashat Pinchas, where all of the chaggim and their 
respective korbanot are  listed, in the last item (Eighth Day...) it says:  
Bayom Hashmini  (stop) Atzeret ti'yeh lachem....
Since this pasuk is  part of the listing of all of the chaggim, obviously 
Atzeret is the name of  this holiday of the eighth day.
This is also why I  believe that those who say Shmini Chaga Hatzeret Hazeh 
are  more correct than those who say Shmini Atzeret HaChag  Hazeh.









I don't  deny that there are other valid reads
My points were simple and  multi-faceted, to whit: 
    1.  Rema saw a pattern [aisi the terms were Tanach based NOT  hazal 
based] 
    2.  He presumed that since Hag was absent from the Humash for  this 
holiday that this absence was significant. [ e.g. Dr. Yaakov Elman posits  that 
Ramban sees Torah as "omisignificant"] 
    3.  I extrapolate from this as follows: even were we to reject  the 
Rema's conclusion [as you did] you can still view his methodology as  having merit. 
IOW that one can find patterns and use them to draw inferences  w/o drawing 
that particular inference 
    4.  This logic is really akin to davar halameid mei'inyano.   I.E. it is 
a form of analysis by means of context.
Illustation: We accept that the lo Tignov in  the aseres hadibros is striclty 
in reference to gneivas nefashos by the method  of davar halaeim mei-inyano 
[see Rashi] 

There are probably a billion  XTIANS who are familiar with the 10 
Commandments who would be flabbergasted to  see Lo Tignov as so highly restricted in 
scope!  Particularly when you  consider the broaderr scope of g'neiva within 7 
mitzovs b'nei no'ach [inyona  d'yoma]!  And Occums' Razor logic would posit the 
broader read as more  likley/logical.   Nevertheless, this is valid Rabbinical 
technique.  

Summary: The Rema's particular conclusions have indeed been called into  
question. This does not necessarily invalidate the technique of analysis by  
structure, context, or analogy.




************************************** 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/20071011/91c50b63/attachment-0001.html 

On 10/11/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
>
> Close: Ashkenazi sifrei Torah use Kesav BY, Sepharadim use Vellish,
> Chassidim use BY as modified by notes based on the Ari. (Close in that
> Vellish's very name implies some origin in Yiddish-speaking lands,
> but not the Rama...)


I don't follow the logic of this: AIUI (and Yiddish is certainly not my
strong suit) "Vellish" is Yiddish for "foreign" (cognate to "Welsh"), which
davka implies origin *outside* Yiddish-speaking lands.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071011/ba3fbbf1/attachment.htm 

This Shabbos is Shabbos Rosh Chodesh, where during Mussaf we "combine" some
of the Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh liturgy. In the Kovetz Mevakshei Torah of
5755, there was a great discussion about why it is not customary to add
"Kadesheinu B'Mitzvosecha, V'sain Chelkeinu.... V'Taheir Libeinu L'Ovd'cha
BeEmes", being that this is said every Shabbos, Yom Tov, and Shabbos SheChal
B'Yom Tov. Apparently, R' Seraya Deblitzki did institute that it be said in
his Minyan, and there was something of a consensus that our Tefillos should
be emended, though others disagreed.

Does anyone know of:
a) A good reason this piece should not be said on Shabbos Rosh Chodesh
b) Any other large Minyanim or Yeshivos where it is said?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071011/14008a16/attachment.html 

We have all recently (and hopefully) done a "cheshbon hanefesh."  We are
taught by the sages that every person must regularly do a "cheshbon
hanefesh" - a spiritual accounting.

On April 15th we have an accounting to do for the IRS but cheshbon hanefesh
is a much more difficult and involved spiritual accounting. It means taking
a hard inventory on our behavior and life. We will all be eventually audited
by the I.R.S.O. ("Infinite Ribono Shel Olam). This idea of monitoring our
actions is built into the Jewish calendar as well.  The final day of any
time period is an ideal time to review our progress or lack thereof. The
final month of the Jewish year, Elul, is a time when we analyze our previous
year's actions and deportment, as well as the end of each day and the end of
the week (before the start of each Shabbos).

 

Similarly, the final day of each Hebrew month is called Yom Kippur Katan, in
which we are enjoined to review the month's activities.  It is called Yom
Kippur katan (the "small Yom Kippur") because it involves the activities of
just the previous month - and not year. Its relation to the holy day of Yom
Kippur is that on Yom Kippur we review and make amends for the entire year
just passed; but the functions of both are basically the same.

 

Tomorrow evening begins Rosh Chodesh, so happy "cheshbon hanefesh".

 

ri

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071011/6ab1487a/attachment.htm 

RMB writes:

>While whining about my hypothetical person's inability to go all of
>davening without a drink beforehand, here's a related (even more
>maudlin) question:

>He used to enjoy being a sha"tz, and when not, singing along with the
>chazan was a big part of his tefillah on Shabbos and YT. Now, it's
>painful to make it all the way through one or more tefillos without a
>break, meaning frequently declining being sha"tz, and singing only
>snippets rather than the entire keta. So, for the Avodah question:

>Can someone put his mind at ease by proving that the mashal of an eved
>hamozeg kos lerabo veshafach lo specifically applies to Sukkah?

Somewhere or the other I have (but unfortunately cannot find) an article by
Rav Aharon Lichtenstein which he wrote on his father becoming blind, and
hence, of course, al pi the straight understanding of the gemora, becoming
patur from mitzvos.  I confess I don't remember the details, although he (or
perhaps it was his father) took great comfort from the statement by Milton
that "They also serve who only sit and wait".

However, even if the case of eved hamozeg was more generalisable to other
mitzvos, I would not have thought by any stretch it could be generalisable
to your case.  Because sitting in a sukkah is a mitzvah, and if it rains,
one is then patur, and cannot perform the mitzvah (arguably analogous to
going blind).  However, being shatz and even more so singing along with the
chazzan is hard to describe as an actual mitzvah, in cold halachic terms.
At most I would have thought it could be described as a hiddur mitzvah, or
one that enables you (and others) to perform the mitzvah of tephilla more
easily or better.

I could, of course, give you the standard lines that are regularly trotted
out to women who love coming to shul and davening with a minyan and then
have a baby and cannot come (something they also often feel most acutely
this time of year).  I am sure you can fill in the details yourself, so I
don't need to do so here.  Perhaps however, given this context, you can more
easily understand why such standard lines can come across in a very cruel
manner.  And another reason why I am not crazy about these kinds of
statements, is because I truly believe that ruach nachoach is an important
concept, and that is what your singing is all about (as it is for women who
love attending shul).  But there comes a time to all of us when we can no
longer do what we were previously capable of.  For some of us earlier than
others (due to radiotherapy or other reasons).  And some of us have it at
first more temporarily (every time I get pregnant, and see myself getting
more and more helpless and dependent on others, it always strikes me that
pregnancy is a little bit like getting old, only much faster and with it all
suddenly disappearing once the baby appears and one can get back to being in
control of one's body again).  And that gets us into much deeper
philosophical territory, as to why we age the way we do, and why the last
portion of life (if one is lucky) is about surrendering the hard won
independence that we achieve in our adulthood.  You are just having aspects
of it much earlier than your contemporaries, but the same questions remain.

>SheTir'u baTov!
>-micha

Regards

Chana

RSBA has provided some imoprtant information regarding RMK's HH. In the 
process, he paraphrases RM Sternbuch (the one who is now at the Edah?)
> He also expresses his surpise at RMKasher who ignored the Cherem Hakadmonim
> issued by the Bes Din of Vilna after the petira of the Gr"o not to publish
> anything in his name without the haskomo of the Bes Din..

I find that objection somewhat difficult. After all, the Vilna BD is no more 
HYD. Should that mean that we may no longer publish anything by the Gaon? Or 
that <insert your favorite BD> is the only authority that can allow such 
publication?
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

From: Arie Folger [mailto:afolger@aishdas.org] 
RSBA has provided some imoprtant information regarding RMK's HH. In the 
process, he paraphrases RM Sternbuch (the one who is now at the Edah?)
>>
Correct.

> He also expresses his surpise at RMKasher who ignored the Cherem
Hakadmonim
> issued by the Bes Din of Vilna after the petira of the Gr"o not to publish
> anything in his name without the haskomo of the Bes Din..

I find that objection somewhat difficult. After all, the Vilna BD is no more

HYD. Should that mean that we may no longer publish anything by the Gaon? Or

that <insert your favorite BD> is the only authority that can allow such 
publication?
>>

No idea. But maybe one of our Yerushalmi members could question RMS about
this. I understand that he is quite accessible.

SBA



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 225
***************************************

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..."