Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 84

Sat, 01 Dec 2007

• 1. Re: Yekum Purkan (Zev Sero)
• 2. Gentlemen and Ladies; Who Goes First? (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Re: Fables and Lies (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Fables and Lies (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 5. Re: piyyutim (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: Yekum Purkan (Arie Folger)
• 7. Re: Fables and Lies (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: piyyutim (Daniel Israel)
• 9. Re: piyyutim (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: C: we don't rely on manuscripts of Rishonim to overturn psikei halacha (Arie Folger)
• 11. FW: Savoraim (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 12. Re: Kashrus Question (SBA)
• 13. Re: Gentlemen and Ladies; Who Goes First? (Joshua Meisner)
• 14. Re: Was Lavan daft, dense or ... (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Fables and Lies (Chana Luntz)

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, November 21, 2007 8:29 am, David E Cohen wrote:
> : While we're on the topic, it's always puzzled me that chazzanim
> : generally say the second "Yekum Purkan" quietly, given that it is
> : addressed directly to the tzibbur.
 
> As the "name" says, it's addressed directly to the One Who establishes
> salvation. It is said /about/ and for the salvation /of/ the tzibbur.

No.  The tzibur is addressed in the second person; the Malka De'alma
in the third person.  In the Sefardi equivalent, the tzibur answers
"amen" after every separate bracha contained in it.

PS: What I've long wondered, considering that minhagei Ashkenaz are
supposed to come from EY and Sefard from Bavel, is why the Ashkenazi
version of the bracha for the tzibbur is in Aramaic while the Sefardi
one is in Hebrew.

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

At 02:35 PM 11/29/2007, Micha Berger wrote:

>: Yet when YaAkov gets the family introduced to Uncle Esau, the ladies
>: go first until Yosef steps in front of his mother.
>
>Safety before kavod. It almost seems straightforward, if someone can
>explain why Rachel was in more danger from Eisav than the woman he
>could claim should have been his, and why Yosef saw a danger Yaaqov
>did not.
This is because derech eretz requires that children follow the 
parents, and this is what all of them did except for Yosef.

As you probably know, Rashi comments on why Yosef went in front of 
his mother. He feared that Eisav would be attracted by Rachel's great 
beauty and want to take her for himself. (Leah was not as attractive 
a Rochel. Indeed, the Chumash earlier in Vayetze describes Rochel as 
being exceptionally beautiful.) Hence Yosef partially blocked Eisav's 
view of his mother by going in front of her.

See also RSRH on these Pesukim regarding Eisav meeting Yaakov's wives.

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071129/6bb9dc9b/attachment-0001.htm 

> Hmm... Maybe that's the whole point that RCN is making... Maybe they
> did go like sheep, but it was NOT a fiction. Maybe that's the point
> of the virtuous myth, that it does not fictionalize, only poeticize.
> Could it be that the Ten Martyrs did go willingly, and that the only
> distortion of the truth was that they each made this decision
> individually, rather than collectively? If that is indeed the case,
> then I can see the distortions as minor and benign.

Or maybe the R Yishmael incident did take place, but didn't involve all
ten - maybe only R Yishmael and R Shimon were involved in that incident.
It's also possible that the other 8, a generation later, knew that story
and applied it to themselves, accepting their fates just as R Yishmael
and R Shimon had done, because of R Yishmael's vision.

The shoe story may also have happened, but with only a subset of the
named Ten, or with an overlapping minyan (the Romans certainly killed
more than ten important leaders, over the course of their rule!)

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

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Thus the rav needn't identify /the/ spiritual cause in order
> to honestly claim that some sin was a factor. Every sin ever
> committed was a factor....
> And so,
> When a rav identifies a sin to motivate teshuvah, he really
> has quite a bit of leeway. His burden of proof is REALLY low.

I would agree with this, PROVIDED that both paragraphs are kept in mind. The rav has an extremely low burden of proof ONLY because his claim is merely that some sin was the cause, or that a specific sin was one factor among many.

The problem many of us see is that certain rabbanim do seem to specify that a specific sin WAS THE cause - or people misinterpret the rav as having said that.

Akiva Miller

RSBA wrote:
> And AFAIK even Chassidim say yotzros after borchu on Yomim Noroim.
> Why isn't it a hefsek then?

I shall concur by asking [admittedly about 'amidah, not birkot QS), who skips 
unessaneh tauqef on account of the fact that it, too, is a piyut, and thus 
could be a hefseq?

FYI, the reason we say UT has little to do with a certain Rav Amnon who may or 
may not have lived in Mainz and may or may not have had the slightest 
connection with the author of that piyut. The reason is that UT is peti'hah 
liqdushah on RH. Some, but not all Ashkenazi communities also use it on YK 
(but many Yekkes, us included, have a different peti'hah on YK).
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RMB wrote:
> As the "name" says, it's addressed directly to the One Who establishes
> salvation. It is said /about/ and for the salvation /of/ the tzibbur.

When we bless the community, we say yevarekh yaskhon, as opposed to yashon. 
Thus, we are addressing the community, in second person plural. It seems that 
the original question thus remains.

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

RAM wrote:
> The part that really bothers me is how the author portrays what happened
> BEFORE the murders: The ruler got the ten of them together, he made up the
> story about the shoes, the ten of them sent Rabi Yishmael on a mission to
> find out what's happening in Shamayim, and they agreed to docilely go to
> their deaths.

Not all sources agree on this. Only some of the midrashim mention that there 
were ten martyrs to atone for Ypssef's sale, and not all link those ten with 
any known list. In fact, many of the midrashim, as well as both talmudim, do 
not state that there were ten. The figure ten only appears in later sources, 
such as in the Igeret Rabbi Sherirya Gaon, who sets the entire story at the 
time shortly after the 'Hurban, and indeed lists Rabban Yo'hanan Ben Zakai 
instead of Rabbi Aqivah, IIRC.

The most prominent source linking the 10 martyrs to an atonement for Yossef's 
sale AND providing a listing of the martyrs, is Heikhalot Rabbati, a mystical 
text. The mere appearance of that interpretation in that work should suffice 
to make us guess that the composition wasn't necessarily meant to be taken as 
chronologically coherent, but rather unified on a mystical level.

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

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:06:48 -0700 Arie Folger 
<afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:
>RSBA wrote:
>> And AFAIK even Chassidim say yotzros after borchu on Yomim 
Noroim.
>> Why isn't it a hefsek then?
>
>I shall concur by asking [admittedly about 'amidah, not birkot 
>QS), who skips unessaneh tauqef on account of the fact that it, 
too, 
>is a piyut, and thus could be a hefseq?

I was told that strict minhag haGra is to not say UT during 
chazaras hashatz, but instead to say it afterwards for precisely 
this reason.  Can someone confirm this?

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

Arie Folger wrote:

> FYI, the reason we say UT has little to do with a certain Rav Amnon who may or 
> may not have lived in Mainz and may or may not have had the slightest 
> connection with the author of that piyut. The reason is that UT is peti'hah 
> liqdushah on RH.

Indeed, that's why "uvechen lecho taaleh kedusha" comes *before* UT.
It has long seemed to me, therefore, that one should stand as for kedusha,
just as one does for the keter/naaritzcha with which we usually introduce
the kedusha of musaf; and that the person who opens and closes the aron
should remain up there until after kedusha, instead of retreating to his
place as soon as he's closed it.  But I haven't seen this done.  People
do stand for UT, but not with feet together, and don't refrain from
wandering about or whispering a word to their kids, etc., to an extent
that they would refrain during kedusha.

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

RSBA wrote:
> There is a page about this topic in the sefer Butzina Kadisha vol 1 (by Reb
> Sender Deutsch) where he also quotes from a kadmon RM Taku in 'Ksav Tamim'
> that there were manuscripts forged my minim 'lehatos es haolom'..

Isn't that RM Taku who alledgedly held some strange position regarding the non 
corporeality of G"d?

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

R' Josh Backon no longer posts to Avodah, but he wrote me the following:

[I no longer post on AVODAH but you may wish to quote me]


The 4-5 generations of the Savoraim started with Rabba 
bar Yosef, Rav Yosef [Generation 1]; Rab Achi bar Huna, Rav Tachlifa, 
Rav Simona, Rav Eina [Gen #2]; Rav Chanan m'Ishkiya, Rav Mari, Rav 
Chanina, Rav Chinena [Generation #3]; Rav Yitzchak [Gen. #4]; and 
Mar Rava, Mar Huna, Rav Shishna and Rav Busai [Generation #5] who 
edited parts of the Talmud (e.g. the first 3 daf of Kiddushin) ? 
This period lasted 187 years AFTER the period of Ravina and Rav Ashi. 

As the Meiri (Introduction to Pirkei Avot) indicated: up until the end 
of the period of the Savoraim (692 CE), the gemara was still studied 
only orally since it was not committed to script. 

The Geonic period started with Rav Chanina Gaon m'Nahar Pakud in the 
year 700 CE. And as we see in the Maggid Mishna (on Rambam Hilchot 
Chametz u'Matza 5:20) the Geonim were allowed to develop binding 
ordinances on all Israel. 


The following mefarshim indicated that certain sections of the text 
of the gemara were added by the Rabbanan Savorai: 

1) Iggeret R. Sherira Gaon mentions that the first section of the 1st perek 
in Kiddushin (up to "bakesef mina lan ?") was added by the Savoraim 

2) R. Sherira Gaon also mentions: the section in Sanhedrin 43a "R. Robai" 

3) Tosafot Zevachim 102b d"h "parich" quotes the Rashbam that anytime 
"R. Achai" is mentioned in the talmud it is referring to one of the 
Rabbana Savorai? (see also the Yam shel Shlomo on Bava Metzia 2 on 
'rabbanai') 

4) Rambam in his Peyrush haMishnayot to Zavim 4:6 mentions that a comment 
in the gemara in Niddah 4b on "maddaf" is an addition of the savoraim 

5) RASHI in Yoma 62b d"h? "umusafin" re: the 'tarbitza'? (also: Tosafot 
in Menachot 82b d"h "u'bitarbitza") 

6) RITVA Bava Metzia 3b on section from: "beyn l'raban" until "R. Chiya" 

7) See also RITVA Bava Metzia? 15b and 19b? on some added lines from 
the late Savoraim (or even an early gaon [R. Yehudai Gaon 759 c.e. !] 

8) MEHARSHA Chiddushei Aggadot Taanit 25a: ("R. Chanina ben Dosa") is an 
addition of the savoraim 

Also see the Shitta Mekubetzet. 


KOL TUV

Josh

Dr. Josh Backon 


KT,
MYG

From: "Daniel Israel" < >
"Prof. Levine" 
>One person who is involved in the supervision of a donut store
told>me that they actually visit the store on Pesach. ..
>So I have to ask (again), "These donuts that are manufactured on Pesach 
>under supervision are kosher for whom? What does this supervision on 
>Pesach mean?" I presume that the sign saying the store is under 
>supervision is not removed on Pesach.

I am very confused by your continuing to ask this question
>>

I am not sure that this is RYL's question, but isn't there a chashash of
michshol here?

After all, some little old lady - and maybe even some young man - who
doesn't particularly follow  specific hashgochos, ie, any 'kosher' is good
enough for him) going past and sees the hechsher sign could go in for a
donut. After all these days there is EVERYTHING kosher lepesach - so why not
KLP donuts?

A dayan here told me today that he had a call once on chol hamoed Pesach
from a lady in hospital who had been served a 'kosher' meal. 
Suddenly she noticed the lokshen in the soup - and she called him.

But how many never even think of asking questions if they see a kosher seal?


SBA

On Nov 29, 2007 2:18 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Safety before kavod. It almost seems straightforward, if someone can
> explain why Rachel was in more danger from Eisav than the woman he
> could claim should have been his, and why Yosef saw a danger Yaaqov
> did not.

It seems logical that Eisav would be more attracted to the physical
Rachel than to the spiritual Leah.  The idly chattering townspeople in
Charan were discussing a theoretical arrangement that likely would
have made Eisav as disappointed as Leah would have been.

Perhaps Yaakov reasoned that once he was married to Rachel, she was
safe, while Yosef (the adversary of Eisav) knew better?  Even if Eisav
could not forcibly take her from Yaakov, his lecherous gaze could
still have some adverse effect on her (I vaguely recall hearing
someone mention such an ayin hara).

- Joshua

On Wed, November 28, 2007 12:21 am, R Jonathan Baker wrote:
:> However, beshe'as ma'aseh, it would seem that nevu'ah is an
:> incontravertably real experience....

: Unless it's a vision.

I didn't explain myself well. The visions were "incontrovertibly real
experiences" of the Divine. No one (except a 3 yr old, like Shemu'el
haNavi's first nevu'ah) who had a nevu'ah would question that it
really was a message from the A-lmighty or experience of higher
reality. Even if his mind is forced to clothe it in mashal.

Which would be the only way to understand Avraham being willing to
kill Yitzchaq on the strength of what some rishonim (most?) would
insist had to be a vision.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

RAM writes:

> The part that 
> really bothers me is how the author portrays what happened 
> BEFORE the murders: The ruler got the ten of them together, 
> he made up the story about the shoes, the ten of them sent 
> Rabi Yishmael on a mission to find out what's happening in 
> Shamayim, and they agreed to docilely go to their deaths.

...

> Hmm... Maybe that's the whole point that RCN is making... 
> Maybe they did go like sheep, but it was NOT a fiction. Maybe 
> that's the point of the virtuous myth, that it does not 
> fictionalize, only poeticize. Could it be that the Ten 
> Martyrs did go willingly, and that the only distortion of the 
> truth was that they each made this decision individually, 
> rather than collectively?

I think it is more than poeticising.  Ten is a minyan.  And what happens
in a prayer minyan?  Ten individuals recite their individual prayers in
their own way and at their own pace and yet the presence of the others
is enough to make it a collective.  And not just any collective, but a
community.  By having the ten martyrs be in the presence of the others,
the author is turning this from a statement about some very virtuous
individuals, to a statement about the actions of the best of the Jewish
community.  With the linkage made explicitly to that other minyan of the
10 brothers, via the shoe reference.

And don't forget that Ayleh Ezk'ra is dealing with a very important
theological question - particularly in the context of Europe.  One of
the allegations of Xtianity, that Jews could not fail to be aware of, is
that the very downtrodden nature of the Jews and their persecution
proved the correctness of Xtianity over Judaism and the rejection of the
Jews by G-d based on the rejection of G-d by the Jews.  You just need to
see the statues that adorn the entrance way of many of the cathedrals of
Europe - on the one side Xtianity, standing erect with stern gaze and
upright staff and on the other side Judaism, with broken staff,
blindfolded and bowed.  Ayleh Ezkra is an answer to this.  An argument
for the nobility of the suffering of the Jewish community; the divine
involvement in that suffering; the acceptance of the divine will that is
indeed manifest (the antithesis of rejection); the linkage back, not to
any of the timescales of Xtianity, but to the original first community
of Jews (the sons of Ya'akov) and errors that they may perhaps have
made, with the divine commitment and involvement continuous since then
on a unprecedented level, despite such errors.  That this is a
discussion about community, not about individuals.  About the Shechina
resting (or not resting) upon a community, and the nature of kiddush
HaShem and what it can mean on a communal level as well as on an
individual level.  I do not think that the same point can be made in
anything like the same way if you treat each of the ten martyrs merely
as individuals, but only if you see them as a community.  And while you
may if pushed be able to see that across generations, given our
knowledge of what a minyan means, it is apparent much more viscerily if
they are portrayed as being joined together in space and time.  

 If that is indeed the case, then I 
> can see the distortions as minor and benign.

So I guess rather than merely see the distortions as being minor and
benign, I see them as being necessary to make the theological point in
the most direct and emotionally impactive way, without needing to resort
to reams of commentary.  I think it is a deeper truth to see them as a
community, rather than as individuals, and to see their decision making
as being that of a community, rather than as individuals, despite many
of them never having necessarily met one another, and being generations
out.  This is what I understand the various thinkers to mean when they
use the term myth and try and reclaim it from the modern idea that myths
are untrue.  I agree if we could find a better word, it might be better.

BTW, you liken this sort of thing to Santa Claus.  Like most Jewish
kids, I loathed the whole concept of Santa Claus, with a loathing mixed
undoubtedly with envy for the present haul linked thereto.  But I
confess that my attitude to Santa Claus has modified somewhat.
Obviously I am not advocating any truck with this for any of us, but I
would note certain factors that you might not have considered:

A) Santa Claus is omniscient (he knows whether you have been "naughty or
nice");
B) Santa Claus is concerned with justice (the distinction between naught
and nice matters);
C) Santa Claus is benevolent (he gives presents);
D) There is only one of him;
E) Notwithstanding D), he is ubiquitous at this time of year (he manages
to be at every shopping center simultaneously);
F) However his abode is somewhere completely obscure and out of reach;
G) Despite F) he responds to communications and supplications;

Of course he is also extremely corporal (not to say corpulent) and his
focus is materialistic.  On the other hand, Xtian children are expect to
grow out of him - to reach an age when they learn that he does not
exist.  I suspect, in that respect, while they are expected to grow out
of him, they are presumably not expected to grow out of the
understandings of the existence of a) omniscience, b) overarching
justice; C) benevolence; D) unity; E) omniprescence; F) transcendence
and G) supplication.  I presume that at that point, the ideal is that
they are then supposed to grow into an understanding of G-d.

If you take the R' Ya'akov Emden approach to Xtianity, and say it is a
good thing because it teaches the existence of one G-d (despite
problematic aspects of shituf), then I wonder if, in a world in which
there is such an enormous amount of disbelief, we ought not to at least
have a more positive view about something which arguably teaches at
least some of the values to small children that we regard as essential.
Dunno, but food for thought.

> Akiva Miller

Regards

Chana



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 84
**************************************

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..."