Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 99

Tue, 18 Dec 2007

• 1. Yosef and his brothers (Richard Wolberg)
• 2. Re: Yosef and his brothers (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Women Lighting Menorahs (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 4. Re: Yekum Purkan (Zev Sero)
• 5. Prohibition of Maziq (Doron Beckerman)
• 6. Removable Tattoos (M Cohen)
• 7. Re: Removable Tattoos (T613K@aol.com)
• 8. Re: Removable Tattoos (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Women Lighting Menorahs (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Re: Women Lighting Menorahs (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Having a boyfriend equivalent to being married? (Chana Luntz)
• 12. Re: Yekum Purkan (Richard Wolpoe)

Toby Katz wrote:
This reminds me of something striking that I always think about this  
time  of
year, when we read the whole Yosef story. That is, when Yosef is set  
upon by
his brothers, put in a pit, and then sold -- the Torah doesn't say a  
peep
about  how Yosef reacted to all this at the time, whether he said  
anything,
fought back  or what.  He's just -- silent.  The emotional tone of  
the  sale is
flat.

This is not at all uncommon throughout the Torah.  When Yitzchok is  
about to be sacrificed, the Torah doesn't say a peep about how he  
reacted; when Aaron loses Nadav and Avihu, he too, is silent.

Best regards/kol tuv,
ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071217/e7dac7e5/attachment-0001.html 

On Mon, December 17, 2007 7:02 am, Cantor Richard Wolberg wrote:
: This is not at all uncommon throughout the Torah.  When Yitzchok is
: about to be sacrificed, the Torah doesn't say a peep about how he
: reacted; when Aaron loses Nadav and Avihu, he too, is silent.

Aharon's reaction is a different thing. WRT Yitzchaq, the Torah
doesn't tell us how he reacted. WRT Aharon is does -- his reaction is
described as one of stoic silence, vayidom Aharon. There is a
difference between the Torah's silence and Aharon's.

Interesting to me that perhaps the incident in chumash that seems to
be most replete in description of emotional responses is the encounter
Esav has with Yitzchaq when Esav comes -- just a little too late -- to
claim "his" berakhah.

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

I quoted
> Mishne Brura 671:9, that because of "ishto k'gufo" (that
> husband and wife are two halves of a whole), one of them
> can light and still be following the "each person" rule.

R' Steven J Scher commented:
> I saw this MB too, but don't really understand it. Is there
> any other case where the halacha or minhag is for everyone
> to do something, but we rely on ishto k'gufo to fulfill it?

Excellent question. I suspect that we will NOT find any other such cases, and that this is because of the unique nature of the case at hand.

We have many mitzvos which apply to the entire home as a unit. Examples include Shabbos candles and Eruv tavshilin. These mitzvos are usually done by a senior member of the household; the others are automatically covered, simply by being a member of that household. They are *not* covered via the usual procedures of "shomea k'oneh" or by making the other person a shaliach. The other people don't even need to be present when the mitzvah is performed. It is automatic.

Other mitzvos very clearly apply to each individual. Kiddush and Lechem Mishneh are examples of this. These too are usually done by a senior member of the household, but the others are very specifically covered by virtue of being present, and having in mind to be covered, etc etc. There's nothing automatic about it.

Ner Chanukah is a very different case. Is it a mitzvah which applies to the entire home collectively, or is it a mitzvah which applies to each resident individually? The answer is that it truly does fall in both categories. Many have commented on the uniqueness of Ner Chanuka, in that - from the very beginning - Chazal legislated several optional levels in which it could be performed. For other halachos, chumras and kulas result from different views among the authorities, and similar methods, but for Ner Chanukah, one has the unquestionable right to choose whichever version he wants, and is unquestionably yotzay regardless which he chooses. One can choose to be automatically yotzay via the baal habayis's lighting, or one could choose to do it himself.

Now, suppose one chooses the "Mehadrin" version of this mitzvah, in which each resident lights his own single candle, or the Ashkenaz version of "Mehadrin Min Hamehadrin", in which each resident lights his own whole menorah. Why would the husband and wife share, rather than following the "each resident lights his own" rule?

My wild guess is that the answer is in deference to the particular language which the Gemara (Shabbos 21b, middle of page) uses to describe the basic, non-mehadrin, version of this mitzvah: "Mitzvas Chanukah - ner ish ubeiso" - "The Mitzvah of Chanukah is a ner for a man and his home." Why use the words "a man AND his home"? Why not just say "ner l'bayis" - "one ner for the home"?

My guess is that there is someone somewhere who focused on this particular phrasing, and connected it to R' Yosi's saying (Shabbos 118b) that "I call my wife 'my home'". Thus, even when following the Mehadrin versions of this mitzvah, "ner ish ubeiso", there is but one ner (or menorah) for both the husband and wife.

Again, all the above is only my wild guess.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Bolster your sales numbers with professional sales training. Click here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3m6SEgfThEKc2JbLy2XmSRoUfh18UkaH2JkwurbPy7W64E4K/

Richard Wolpoe wrote:

> But the truth be told, this is not a black and white issue.  E.G. Rashi 
> seems convinced that his Mesorah is from Bavel over Israel.

It was.  His mesorah was from Rabbenu Gershom, who went to study in
Bavel, and brought the Bavli derech back to Europe with him.  Or so I
have gathered from random reading - perhaps I'm mistaken.

In other news I must modify a previous comment of mine on this subject.
I had pointed out the oddity (to me) that Ashkenazim whose minhagim
are supposed to be from EY say Yekum Purkan in Aramaic, while Sefardim
whose minhagim are supposed to be from Bavel say an equivalent bracha
in Hebrew.  This Shabbos I had another look at the Sefardi equivalent
of YP, and noticed that it does break into Aramaic for about two lines
in the middle, and then switches back to Hebrew.  I don't think this
substantially alters my wonder, but it is worth mentioning.

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

http://iyunim.blogspot.com/search/label/Prohibition%20to%20Damage
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071217/e96b0423/attachment-0001.htm 

Ma'aris ayin .. 

 

(although c/be more than that)

 

Mordechai cohen 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071217/fb2fbb99/attachment-0001.html 

 
 
From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgluck@gmail.com>
>>So, here we  have ink which is nonpermanent, and when encased in the polymer
- which is  colorless - has a permanent effect, yet is intended to be
nonpermanent and  easily removed. What sayeth the  Chevrah?<<

>>>>>
"Removable" tattoos are the ones that come in Cracker Jacks, which a  child 
can wash off with some effort.  The kind you're talking about are no  more 
"removable" than your own fillings are "removable."  You still need to  go to 
someone to get the tattoo removed.  The laser that dissolves the  tattoo you're 
talking about is not a household item.  So IMO it's still  assur.
 

BTW when I was a girl grownups would go crazy if  you even drew  pictures on 
yourself with a pen. Why did they used to take such writing on your  skin so 
seriously and why are we so lenient nowadays?  




--Toby  Katz
=============




**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071217/60aa4762/attachment.htm 

In earlier discussion, we noted Rashi's opinion that anything that
wouldn't come off in a matter of days would be assur. And, in
contrast, the minhag of having a henna which proves that Sepharadi
pisqa obviously disagreed.

Just pointing people to the archive v17n74 or so, the topics of
"Random thoughts on tatoos" and "face painting".

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

We have many mitzvos which apply to the entire home as a unit. Examples
include Shabbos candles and Eruv tavshilin. These mitzvos are usually
done by a senior member of the household; the others are automatically
covered, simply by being a member of that household. They are *not*
covered via the usual procedures of "shomea k'oneh" or by making the
other person a shaliach. The other people don't even need to be present
when the mitzvah is performed. It is automatic.



Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________

Are candles really a mitzvah that applies to the home as a unit(e.g. the
wife has a highly communicable disease and has confined herself to the
2nd floor area which includes a small kitchen and bedroom, the husband
has a similar set up in the basement - is he yozeh with her lighting?)
Isn't candle lighting a din in oneg and kavod which is chal on each
individual (i.e. if this is the only act of this nature, would all the
bnai bayit get credit for both (especially if one didn't utilize?)  

KT
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

Rich, Joel wrote:

> Are candles really a mitzvah that applies to the home as a unit

AIUI the obligation is on the baal habayit.


>(e.g. the
> wife has a highly communicable disease and has confined herself to the
> 2nd floor area which includes a small kitchen and bedroom, the husband
> has a similar set up in the basement - is he yozeh with her lighting?)

The obligation is to light *every* room that will be used on shabbat,
i.e. both his quarters and hers.  Your question becomes, whether he
needs to make a separate bracha on his lighting, and my guess is that
he doesn't.


> Isn't candle lighting a din in oneg and kavod which is chal on each
> individual (i.e. if this is the only act of this nature, would all the
> bnai bayit get credit for both (especially if one didn't utilize?)  

The mitzvah is "that he not stumble on wood or stone" by attempting
to navigate in the dark.  Therefore AIUI it applies to the person who's
responsible for the maintenance of the rooms, i.e. the baal habayit,
who is by millennia-old tradition obligated to delegate it to his wife.

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

RJE writes:

> This seems to be asking about what their intentions
> were. But their intentions are irrelevant in the face
> of a chazakah..

I think this is a misunderstanding of a chazaka.

A chazaka in general is a rebuttable presumption.  That is, we assume
something, usually about an existing status continuing, if we do not have
the information to know to the contrary.  For example, take the case of the
chazaka on Yevamos 119b - since at the time the husband left with his
co-wife he was childless, given that we do not know what had happened, the
presumption is that he remained childless at his death, and hence the wife
he left behind has a chazaka for yibum.  If we find out that her co-wife
conceived and had a child, then of course the chazaka goes away.

Which is why the gemora there can make a statement like v'chazaka lo adif ki
ruba - ie that the principle of majority can be considered to override a
chazaka (in this case that most women conceive and give birth, so rov would
suggest that the co-wife that went with the husband did conceive).

> Why does it matter what the eidim assume? IF the
> chazakah is operational, then as long as they are
> witnesses to the actual biah (or, I suppose, to a
> yichud that is equivalent to witnessing biah?), the
> chazakah should apply. Just like we don't take into
> account the couple's intentions, we shouldn't take the
> eidim's assumptions into account either. Even if the
> eidim think it was biah zenut, the chazakah should
> hold.

No, if the eidim think it was a biah znus, then the chazaka would definitely
not apply.   The only reason we might not believe what the couple themselves
say is because of the principle that a person cannot make himself out to be
a rasha.

And I agree with RZS that the chazaka of ain adam oeseh bialso bilas znus is
generally only regarded as applying to "kasherim" according to the Rambam -
see Hilchos Ishus, perek 7 halacha 23.  And as the Rema Even Ha'Ezer siman
32 si'if 1 puts it "im kvar chukzak l'znus or she'yesh lo isha acheres lo
chashinan"

This is not surprising when you think about the fact that this chazaka is
really only one facet of the general principle giving everybody a chezkas
kashrus.  Which is why your second original case:

> You might say that the chazakah doesn't apply to her
> because she was not observant. What if she was, but
> just transgressed in this one particular area?

Might have something more in it (assuming both he and she were observant).
If you would not dream of eating from their food, I think we can discount
the kashrus of their relationship pretty easily.  If on the other hand you
and everybody else would feel comfortable eating from their food and
generally relying on their hezkas kashrus in other ways, then there might be
an issue if they could not be considered to be "chukzak in pritzus".  A
series of boyfriends/girlfriends would seem to make the matter pretty clear
though even in that regard.

And that is before you get into the question of rov in today's non frum
society.

> Josh

And then RZS wrote:
 
> Micha Berger wrote:
> 
> > Ve'el isheikh teshuqaseikh sure seems like a maqor for tav lemeisiv.
> > If you do not believe tav lemeisiv is a universal, you need to explain
> > why this part of Chavah's onesh ended, or how it doesn't mean what it
> > seems to. The connection seems inescapable. (With 20:20 hindsight once
> > someone pointed it out.)
> 
> Only if you interpret "ve'el isheich teshukateich" that way in the
> first place.  RYBS's interpretation is not muchrach.  

Not only is RYBS's interpretation not muchrach in the pasuk, but, as I keep
pointing out, it is not muchrach in the gemora's description of tav lemaisiv
either.  The gemora seems rather to be discussing the social status that a
woman gains by having her "MRS", even if the man concerned is completely
inappropriate.  The relevant piece of gemora ends by concluding that a woman
who takes one of these inappropriate men and yet is happy to flaunt her
married status also satisfies her sexual needs by taking lovers and bringing
up those children as her husband's - see eg Yevamos 118b "v'kulan mezanos
v'tolos b'balehen".  That is hardly a description of a woman who ve'el
isheich teshukateich. If anything the opposite.

Which is why I think we are barking up the wrong tree if we are take a
"better a bad marriage than a good divorce" type understanding of tav
lemaisiv.  In a society where marriage is everything, and what separates a
woman from a child, there can be reasons why a woman wants to and is
prepared to get married (and perhaps stay married) which has nothing to do
with any real relationship with her husband.  And it is only the strong
willed woman who is going to be prepared to hold out for a man who is truly
suitable (which is after all the shvach of the bnos Zlofchad). 
Regards

Chana

On Dec 17, 2007 10:39 AM, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

> Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>
> > But the truth be told, this is not a black and white issue.  E.G. Rashi
> > seems convinced that his Mesorah is from Bavel over Israel.
>
> It was.  His mesorah was from Rabbenu Gershom, who went to study in
> Bavel, and brought the Bavli derech back to Europe with him.  Or so I
> have gathered from random reading - perhaps I'm mistaken.


it has bee nattributed to Rabbeinu Gershom that the BAvli is no more nor no
less authoritative as any other work of TSBP.  This does not gell with the
above. Truth be told I have not research RGMH very thoroughly.  I do not
know how much Rahi's rebbes learned from him.


>
> In other news I must modify a previous comment of mine on this subject.
> I had pointed out the oddity (to me) that Ashkenazim whose minhagim
> are supposed to be from EY say Yekum Purkan in Aramaic,


Again Aramaic is both Judean and Babylonian. Sokoloff has 2 separet
dictionaries fro each dialeect. Yersuhalmi is in mostly Aramaic. Onkelos
used to be in Judean Aramaic but has morphed.



> while Sefardim
> whose minhagim are supposed to be from Bavel


Again this is not black and white.  it is probably tht there are dozens of
ashkenazic sources from Bavel and conversely certain Sephardic litrugy comes
from Israel.

E.G. one of the major sources for  Ashkenazic liturgy is Seder Rav Amram
Gaon who is clearly from Bavel.

Taking prescpricptive genralities as aboslutes is a common way to
mis-understand what is being said.  Fro example Halacha keRav be'issurim but
Rav holds thst kiddush is not needed bimkom s'udah.  That is Sh'mu'el's
position.  These are not rules rather they are k'lalim. A Klal is a
generality NOT a rule.  To use computer terminology they are defaults.
Ashkenaz dafults to Eretz Yisroel EXCEPT when it takes other sources.

Sayhing a Stam Mishna is kerabbi Me'ir does nto mean EVERY mishnah is like
Rabbi Mei'r.  If if says divrei R. Yehudah it is not kerabbi Meir. If Yekum
Purkam MENTIONS reishei galvasa by name it CANNOT be from Eretz Yisroel! How
can a resih galusa be from EY?   Yekum Purkan is "signed" as from Bavel.
-but not because it is Aramaic.  Kaddish is in Aramaic, too Does that imply
a Babylonian source?


> say an equivalent bracha
> in Hebrew.  This Shabbos I had another look at the Sefardi equivalent
> of YP, and noticed that it does break into Aramaic for about two lines
> in the middle, and then switches back to Hebrew.  I don't think this
> substantially alters my wonder, but it is worth mentioning.
> --
> Zev Sero
>

-- 
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/20071217/8f23ff75/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 99
**************************************

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..."