Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 92

Thu, 06 Dec 2007

• 1. Tefillin on Rosh Chodesh (Arie Folger)
• 2. Re: A shemitta miracle story (SBA)
• 3. Re: The laining on Chanuka in chu"l and EY (Michael Poppers)
• 4. Miketz - A FEW PESHATIM (SBA)
• 5. Re: Tefillin on Rosh Chodesh (Zev Sero)
• 6. Behaalosekha es haneiros (Gershon Dubin)
• 7. Re: Behaalosekha es haneiros (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 8. Re: A shemitta miracle story (Dov Bloom)
• 9. Re: How much Conformity to local Nusach/Mihag is required for Shatz and for the Private Worshiper? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Re: Apikores? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 11. Re: Kedushah (Richard Wolpoe)
• 12. Re: Freedom of exegesive interpretation (Richard Wolpoe)

Following a reference by our esteemed list owner RMB to an idea by RYBS about 
the introductory qedushah statement "keter yitnu lekha," some posters have 
been speculating about an actual prohibition of wearing tefillin on RC 
(several posters, or that it was at least prohibited while the mussaf 
offering was made (RDR posted so).

While Torah hi, ulelamdah ani tzarikh, and I find it fascinating to learn more 
about the subject, I am somewhat bemused as to the suggestion that mussaf and 
tefillin, or even RC and tefillin, are somewhat incompatible. Ancient minhag 
Ashkenaz (as currently practiced by very few people) was to keep tefillin on 
until the end. (minhag quoted in, for example, minhagut Wormaize)

The interesting question isn't whether in the BhM people would wear tefillin 
on RC, acc. to this ancient minhag Ashkenaz, they did, even during mussaf.

Instead, the question is, when did the idea of not wearing tefillin during 
mussaf on RC start. I have a feeling (but that is currently only a 
speculation) that it isn't more than 400-700 years old.

I eagerly await the learned references on the subject,

Yasher koa'h
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

From: Dov Bloom < >
R YH Zonnenfeld and RS Salant opposed the heter 100% and gave various and
many halachic arguments against it. But an assured bracha? ..

None of these gedolim who opposed RYE Spector's heter suggested (as the
fellow from Beit Horon and some posters did ), let alone promised the kiyum
of the bracha nowadays before the shmitta year. 
>> 

Of course these days we are not zoche to see everything as the Torah
promises/warns us. That would remove any bechireh.
 
After all, the Torah warns 'velo soki haaretz es'chem betamachem osoh'.
What could/should have happened after the gay parades...?

IMHO, if the people of Beit Horon are happy with their brocho, we should be
happy with them - rather than try and prove 'statistically' that nothing
really happened.

SBA

In Avodah Digest V24#90, RMarBl noted re the "middle" days of Chanukah:
> I have lived in EY for a number of years...the laining here on Chanuka in
EY is different then in chutz laaretz.
> On Chanuka we read the parsha of the nesiim, every day the nasi for that
day. Each nasi is 6 pesukim and we have 3 aliyas. That means we are 3
pesukim short.... <
On the topic of Chanukah readings, there also is a chiluq re the "bookend"
days between minhag Frankfurt (perhaps the minhag of other German cities or
of Ashk'naz in general?) and what you'll find most Ashk'naz chutzniks
doing.  For day 1, minhag Frankfurt begins with the parashos of bircas
kohanim, so not only does the 3rd oleh have the entire parashah of n'si
Y'hudah (appropriate for a yisrael subsequent to churban bayis sheini), the
1st oleh has a parashah very appropriate for him (assuming he's a kohein),
and (with the 2nd oleh according to all Ashk'nazim having p'suqim
appropriate for a leivi) isn't that a nation-unifying way to begin one's
q'riyah-related celebration of Chanukah with (not to mention that the
actions of Matisyahu & Family can be compared to the al-hayam action of
Nachshon ben Aminadav).  For the 3rd oleh on day 8, minhag Frankfurt does
not continue into the parashah of "b'ha'alos'cha."

Gut Chanukah/Chanukah Sameach and a guten Shabbos/Shabbas Shalom from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071206/74652d04/attachment-0001.htm 

From: "Richard Wolberg" < >
The wine steward remembers Yosef and approaches Par'o with his story. "With
us there was this Jewish kid [na'ar]..." Par'o orders Yosef's removal from
prison and Yosef is prepared to meet Par'o.

Rashi points out (actually curses) that wicked people, even when they are
acknowledging good that was done on their behalf, will belittle those to
whom they owe a debt of gratitude. The Wine Steward refers to Yosef as a
NA'AR (connotation of a fool), 
===

I saw a nice pshat explaining how the Sar Hamashkim dared to call Yosef a
'shotah' to Paroy. After all he was recommending him to help with the dreams
and it was a milsa deavide legeluyeh? Paroy would have immediately realized
that Yosef was far, far from being a shotah??

(The SR explains simply that in the eyes of reshaim, all Yerei Hashem/
Shomrei Mitzvos are 'shotim' - something that Paroy fully agreed with -
until he met and heard Yosef.) 

But an even stronger pshat, IMHO, I saw in a Torah journal - that prisoners
whilst in jail have plenty of time to shmooz. Thus after the Sar Hamashkim
and Sar Ha'ofim told Yosef the reasons for their incarceration, they asked
him what he was doing there?

Yosef replied that refusing the attempts of the beautiful Mrs Potifar to
seduce him got him into the slammer. 

"What a shoteh!!!" they thought. And Paroy - the leader of the ervas haaretz
- when hearing this would not have disagreed...

[Talking of shoteh, did anyone else notice another such reference this week?
See Rashi 42:38, dh Lo Yered Beni imochem: "Lo kibel devorov shel Reuven,
omar: bechor shoteh hu zeh - hu omer lehemis bonov, vechi bonov hem velo
bonay?"]


==

Regarding a discussion we had some time ago about tzadikim and their animals
not being nichshal...a nice pshat that the old Nitra rav (Rav Shmuel Dovid
zt'l) brings in his sefer Ne'os Deshe beshem his father Rav Yosef Moshe
Ungar zt'l Pisztian Rav - in parshas Chayei Sarah.

He asks why Eliezer - after accepting a drink from Rivka, allowed her to
bring water for the camels? After all, the siman that he had made for
himself had been fulfilled as soon as Rivka had made the offer, so why
'bamootche' a young girl so much? And even if the camels were thirsty -
which is debatable seeing that had had kefitzas haaretz - he could have
drawn the water himself?

He answers with a vort on this week's parsha from the Vilna Gaon on 'Haboker
Or veha'anoshim shilchu hema vechamoreihem".

 Why - asks the Gra - is it necessary for the pasuk to tell us about the
chamorim?

He answers that we know 'behemton shel tzadikim ein HKBH mevi takolo al
yodon' (and see Taanis 24 that the donkey of Reb Yosi wouldn't bring home
anything that didn't belong to his owner).

Yosef's kavono in the whole Binyomin affair wasn't stam to upset and hurt
his brothers - but rather to ensure that by making them suffer they have a
kapara for their sin of selling him and thus they will not be punished min
hashomayim.

But how can a basar vedam judge if they had already suffered enough for
their aveireh or if they still required some more pain?

So Yosef made himself a siman that if his brother's chamorim would carry off
the stolen govia - that means that they are not yet 'tzadikim' and still
require additional suffering. 

And that is the reason for veha'anshim shilchu "hema vechamoreihem" - the
chamorim being the main test...

Using this, the Neos Deshe explains that Eliezer knew that the gemalim of
Avrohom Avinu would not drink from Rivka if she were not worthy enough to
enter AA's home. Thus the camels were indeed a major test of Rivka's
suitability (as indeed Eliezer emphasized when repeating the story to
Besuel, "vegam hagemalim hishkasa".. VPCC

---


bechayei Paroy..."

How often was Yosef hatzadik 'nishba lasheker'??


SBA

Arie Folger wrote:
> Ancient minhag 
> Ashkenaz (as currently practiced by very few people) was to keep tefillin on 
> until the end. (minhag quoted in, for example, minhagut Wormaize)
> 
> Instead, the question is, when did the idea of not wearing tefillin during 
> mussaf on RC start. I have a feeling (but that is currently only a 
> speculation) that it isn't more than 400-700 years old.

AFAIK the only reason that is actually brought in Achronim is that of
keter, which applies only to places that say it.  The SA says to remove
the tefilin, because the SA assumes keter is said.  The Rema says that
nevertheless the minhag is to remove them even when keter is not said,
but doesn't give a reason, and the Taz says that he doesn't see why,
and recommends leaving them on.

The reason for taking them off in shuls where keter is said is obvious.
When crowning a king, it's inappropriate for us to be wearing our crowns.
And what I have seen done (and I may have also seen inside but can't
recall exactly where) is that if someone is still wearing tefilin while
the minyan is up to musaf, then when the chazan gets to keter he
removes his shel rosh, or at least covers it up.


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

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>

: <<the flame old shouldn't touch the the new wick>>

: Never heard that;  where is that from?

Rashi on the word Behaalosekha.>>

My take on that Rashi is that one must leave the lighting wick there until the lit wick is independent. Not that it shouldn't touch. Is that explicit anywhere? 

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

_____________________________________________________________
Click for free info on online masters degrees and make up to $150K/ year
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3nNjZdMqDo7bycVLW9BbCJDXxXcItWUV94Zr26qsvKJ1ZIhE/

RZev Sero wrote:

<AFAIK only the QHQ was off limits to zarim (i.e. non-kohanim-gedolim), so that maintenance workers had to be lowered in in boxes.  The hechal, AFAIK, has the same din as the azara>

RYitzchak Grossman responded: 

<But see the Tiferes Yisroel, who says that boxes are only required
if they are a viable solution, and they are not required otherwise.>

     It's not just the Tiferes Yisrael; it's a Tosefta in Keilim (1:9), brought lahalacha in the Rambam (Beis Hab'chira 7:23).

     The lowering in boxes was not because the area was off-limits; it isn't off-limits if the entry is for the purpose of repairs, and in any event it is certainly questionable if entry in a box is not considered entry. The reason, as mentioned in Middos 4:5, is "k'dei shelo yizonu eineihem mibeis kodesh hakodashim."  

     As for the heichal having the same din as the azara, it should be noted that the Rambam (loc. cit.) requires the boxes for the heichal.  See the Kesef Mishna, who asks that the mishna specifies only the KHK, and the answer given in a footnote on the Kesef Mishna.  

EMT
_____________________________________________________________
Click for free info on online doctorate degrees and make up to $250k/ year.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3oBoSgLMFjdtCpMhg780r5FuFq08BSYVCaT2ui4qS2xuPlRQ/

At 16:20 06/12/2007, SBA wrote:

>From: Dov Bloom < >
>R YH Zonnenfeld and RS Salant opposed the heter 100% and gave various and
>many halachic arguments against it. But an assured bracha? ..
>
>None of these gedolim who opposed RYE Spector's heter suggested (as the
>fellow from Beit Horon and some posters did ), let alone promised the kiyum
>of the bracha nowadays before the shmitta year. 
>>> 
>SBA: Of course these days we are not zoche to see everything as the Torah promises/warns us. That would remove any bechireh.

DB: And before "these days" there was no bechira?

>SBA; IMHO, if the people of Beit Horon are happy with their brocho, we should be happy with them - rather than try and prove 'statistically' that nothing really happened.
>
>SBA

DB: It is disingenuous to just say people are just being happy for fellow Jews. My moshav had a wheat yield of 1200 kg/dunam in a field last year, and didn't go writing articles in newspapers, massiyot books and internet sites because they had a good crop year. Mevo Horon made a decision to totally reject the heter mechira that the vast majority of farmers in EY base their shemitta hanhagos on and to reject the hanhagos of Otzar Beit Din promulgated by Rav Yisraeli, the CI et al. They decided on a total cessasion of field crops, claim that they are the only ones who acted like this and are proud of their unique decision. They (or HE, it is one guy apparently) is using this story to prove that "min hashamayim" they are correct and everyone else is wrong. Read their article. We can be happy as long as people don't try to prove that this is the example/proof of the Torah promised bracha being active in our day. It isn't.

1 - because there is no Shemitta deOraita now as the large majority of poskim hold Shemitta is d'rabbanan or less than d'rabbanan
2 - the vast majority or the entirety of poskim who dealt with the question is there a promised fulfillment of the Torah's bracha nowadays , deny that this is the case
3 - It is important to base our halachik practices on halacha and not "happy feelings" that we get from hearing stories of questionable validity. 

LaYehudim hayta Ora veSimcha 

On Dec 5, 2007 9:48 PM, Michael Kopinsky <mkopinsky@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Marc Shapiro writes regarding this on Seforim blog:
>
>
>
> > Dr. David Diamond stood up, banged his hand on the bimah, and very
> > sternly declared: "In this shul we have a rav, and we follow what he tells
> > us to do. Artscroll is not the rav and Artscroll does not tell us which
> > Haftorah to read!" With that he sat down, and never again did anyone dare
> > ask a " kasha" on the Rav from Artscroll.
>
> (
> http://seforim.blogspot.com/2007/09/marc-shapiro-what-do-adon-olam-and-mean.html,
> footnote 8)
>
FWIW I used to be a shul rabbi on Shaabos/Yom Tov and Gabbai of a wekday
minyan in Teaneck. During ChhM Sukkos - when the Torah was taken out for
hoshanaos - I suggested to close the Aron Kodesh after taking the Torah
out.   Somebody 2nd guessed me. I said source? He replied Artscroll!

So even if rabbis are not getting 2nd guessed, gabba'im ARE


Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071206/ae2f064e/attachment-0001.html 

On Dec 5, 2007 10:34 AM, David Riceman <driceman@att.net> wrote:

>
>
> Let's consider the case of a person condemned to pick cotton his entire
> life, brutally beaten by cruel taskmasters, underfed and overworked and
> ... (I'm sure you remember Uncle Tom's Cabin).  In the passage I cited
> (Michtav Me'Eliyahu, vol. 4, pp. 98-102) Rabbi Dessler says that this
> can be, not punishment, but part of the incomprehensible Divine Plan.
> How then, can it also represent perfect justice?
>

Consider the Case of of the 10 martyrs.
q: Zo Torah v'zo sechora?
a: I will turn you backinto Tophu tovohu- gzeirao hi milfanei kabluha!

Well what does this mean?
The story goes of a  tailor who is falsely accused of steeling precous
cuttings from the king's robe
the king demans an expalnation and proof that his trusted tailor has not
stolen anything.
The tailor defends himself: "I can prove everything is kosher but to do so
will require disasembing the king's new royal robe and re-assembling the
bolt"

The king says to do so,. he does and his innocence is proven but the robe is
gone back to its original form as a bolt of precious cloth.

Nimshal, HKBH creatd a free-will system. nitpicking on individual cases
cannot be explained w/o unraveling the entire system.  The world now has 6
billion and the impact of each event is far too complex to be massig at
all.  It's really pointless to discuss God's justice on a particualr event
because of the overwhelming number of factoids involved.

Perhaps if you get lucky and you have a lot of zechuyyos you will understand
how Hashem's Justice is working but even Mose could only be massig in
retrospect as per the Midrash v'ro'isa es achorai.

Virtually all religious/spiritual/philosophical systems says  to give up
controlling the external and to control the internal.

See Wikipedia on Epictetus

The essence of Epictetus's psychology is revealed by two of his most
> frequently quoted statements:
>
> We are disturbed not by events, but by the views which we take of them.
>
>  I must die. Must I then die lamenting? I must be put in chains. Must I
> then also lament? I must go into exile. Does any man then hinder me from
> going with smiles and cheerfulness and contentment?
>
> Psalm 145
Hanun v'rachum Hashem  ...Tov Hashem lakol
Become affirmations of our Turst and bitachon that Hashem is doing the right
thing regardless of the external events.

And there is the story of Rabbi Akiva and the  candle/donkey/rooster and
gam zu l'tovah.

when one judges HKBH by events on C'V falls into shefot hashoftim,. Judging
THE JUDGE!

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071206/2e34de82/attachment.htm 

On Dec 5, 2007 12:09 AM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> When I was ill, I stood from "Qadosh, qadosh, qadosh" through "Yimlokh
> H'". It seems to me every davar shebiqdushah involves the concepts of
> berakhah and of Hashem's transcendence. E.g. Borkhu es Hashem haMVORAKH
> LE'OLAM VA'ED, or Yehei shemei ... MEVORAKH leOLAM. But qedushah's
> "barukh ... mimkomo" gets trancendent in kevod H' being above space,
> not discussing time. And thus, I didn't want to end Qedushah before
> "le'olam, E-lokayikh, Tzion, ledor vador. Hallelu-kah!"
>
> AISI, that's the minimal definition of qedushah -- the three quoted
> pesuqim.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger
>

Tangentially speaking:
I once did a quickie article on the combination/conjunctin of kadosh uvaruch
There is a a piyyut recited in KAJ on Shabbos Rosh Chodesh on this theme
as well as during the shacharis of YK

Friday night's amidah: kidashta uveirachta...
Seligmann Baer posits that originally ONLY passuk 3 of vaychulu followed.
Vayevorech Elokimes yokm has'vi'i.Vaykadish oso..

So we  see in Humash, Navi, and in several layers of liturgy this
combination.

==========================================================
tangent on the tangent:
Note: The Yimlocch is NOT part of the ikarr kedusha and does not apepar in
the kedusha of the Yotzer and is swapped with Hashem Yimloch in kedush
d'sidrasa.

Point the ikkar 2 thems of kadosh u'varuch are really paired and the Yimloch
is probably tacked on from the uv'chein's etc. from Yamim Nora'im or the
Malchuyos.  The tip-off is uvdivrei kodsehca kassuv leimor as an intro


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071206/8c9aaf9d/attachment.html 

On Dec 4, 2007 3:51 AM, Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:

> Rabotai,
>
> We have, in the past, often argued about whether we are free to interpret
> verses according to our own understanding, against that provided by the
> midrashim and the Talmud. One of the issues was whether those Rishonim
> offering alternative explanation were offering additional layers of
> understanding or alternative, sometimes exclusive interpretations. A most
> notable example we discussed was Ramban.
>
> KT,
> --
> Arie Folger
> <http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com>


Tangential question:
Can normative Halacha be derived Bb Rishonim/Acharonim directly from
p'ssukim w/o Talmudical sources?

2  cases:

   1. Maharil restricts tzitzis to the married only  by darshening
   semuchos - gedillim ta'aseh lech - ki yikach
   and
   2. Taz requires davening Arvis on Shavuos after Tzeis to fulfill
   "temimos"

note Magen Avraham ONLY requires saying KIDDUSH after tzeis. He davka warns
people to repeat shema after tzeis if they stay up all night and thereby do
not recite kri'as shema al hamitta.  Thus proving he did NOT require Arvis
after Tzeis at all.

The reason I added this Magen Av was to show that Taz was NOT rationalizing
an existing minhag/halacha with a passuk.

I cannot say for sure re: the Maharil whther he was justifying a practice
that existed [perhps due to poverty]. The oddball thing about it is that
yekkes have adaoped about 90% of the Mahairil's Minhaggim BUT NOT THIS ONE,
which might mean they felt he went too far.
-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071206/bd7118f1/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 92
**************************************

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..."