Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 106

Wed, 26 Dec 2007

• 1. Re: Nittelnacht (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. Re: Nittelnacht (Dov Bloom)
• 3. volozhin (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: Tefillin on Rosh Chodesh (saul mashbaum)
• 5. Re: Tefillin on Rosh Chodesh (Zev Sero)
• 6. R' Dr Hirschaut, (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Xmas and easter (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Nittelnacht (Richard Wolberg)
• 9. The Mystery of the 9th of Tevet (David Eisen)
• 10. Re: [Areivim] upcoming C 'psaks' (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: [Areivim] upcoming C 'psaks' (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Neglected Amens (Danny Schoemann)

R"n Toby Katz wrote:
> Also, speaking  mystically/kabbalistically/cosmically,
> Yoshka's birth unleashed all kinds of evil into the
> world for us Jews, his alleged resurrection not so much.

Not to disagree too strongly, but my preference is to feel that this sort of thinking gives undue importance to the man himself.

Even if he did exist, he did not accomplish much in his lifetime.

In contrast, regardless of whether he really existed or not, the much more serious damage was caused 50-100 years later, by those who took his (real or supposed) teachings and made a whole new religion out of it. THAT'S what "unleashed all kinds of evil into the world for us Jews", IMHO.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click to generate a targeted mailing list to grow your business.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3nM49qAUBDflzcmwR5jVqnVoBYRjXzWl1xmAwoDRqLg9iWPQ/

At 07:51 26/12/2007, you wrote:
>I heard it said about the Sochachover (IIRC) that he was willing to  risk 
>whatever Gehenom he would get for learning Torah on Tisha B'Av.   Can anyone 
>confirm that? 

This is commonly quoted from the Rogatchover , R Yosef Rosen 1858-1936, author of the Tzopnat Pa'aneach. 

The Socachover was Avraham Bornstein author of the Avnei Nezer and Eglei Tal (1839-1910). 

The reason why I bring this up - and it might be obvious to everyone here
but me - is that it seems from this that the Volozhin school of thought, as
explicated by the Netziv, which was predisposed against Chassidus (which
could be seen as a parallel to the Essenes) and against secular study
(analogous to the Philosophers)>>

I was always told that in fact Volozhin insisted that the Chassidic boys
keep their chassidic ways and that relative to other places it was not
against secular studies.

-- 
Eli Turkel

Late, but I think worthwhile posting
RZS:
>Another datum:  At least some Italian shuls say Keter in Shacharit and
>Mincha as well as Musaf. 
OTOH, the Taz' nusach was to say "n'kadesh" in musaf as well as shacharit/mincha. See Taz OC 25 s"k 16.
Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071225/1f27892d/attachment.htm 

saul mashbaum wrote:
> Late, but I think worthwhile posting
> RZS:
>> Another datum:  At least some Italian shuls say Keter in Shacharit and
>> Mincha as well as Musaf. 

> OTOH, the Taz' nusach was to say "n'kadesh" in musaf as well as
> shacharit/mincha. See Taz OC 25 s"k 16.

Yes, I cited the Taz in my very first response to this thread.  He leans
toward saying that if you daven Nusach Ashkenaz you takeh shouldn't take
off your tefilin for Musaf; that's this minhag is only relevant to those
who say keter.



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

<<Taking a lead from an Areivim conversation. Two people were discussing
R' Dr Hirschaut, a man recently lauded by the NY Post for his role in
getting cancer research off the ground and keeping it there. Notably, in
his photo for the paper he is sitting in front of a bookcase containing
a Miqra'os Gedolos, Kehati mishnayos, sefarim on medical ethics, etc...

All I know is that in that scenario, I would now be dead. Noa would never
have been born (not to mention the generations who be"H will come from
her), and the rest of my children would have been young yesomim these
past 4 years.>>

Similar to a debate about Yosef. By becoming viceroy he saved many people
from starvation. Would Yaakov had prefered that he be a rosh hayeshiva?

-- 
Eli Turkel

> Does anyone have an answer for:  If one of the reasons for this minhag
> was the danger of getting beaten up outside, then why isn't there a such
> minhag for Easter?>>

Having just spent nittel nacht in Madrid it was a nice for revelry
and drunkedness (good to stay at home). From what I read this
is not unusual. Easter is more solemn. Hence, I assume that
anti-Jewish riots occurred when the peasants got drunk

BTW one of the calendar books has a few pages on the Jewish
importance of Xmas in kabbalah thought (and not a reference to
Yom haazmaut)

<<heard it said about the Sochachover (IIRC) that he was willing to  risk
whatever Gehenom he would get for learning Torah on Tisha B'Av.   Can anyone
confirm that?>>

I assume you mean Rogatochower. That is brought down in books


-- 
Eli Turkel

Toby Katz responded:      Your question about Easter -- xmas is  
especially associated with the night,
with the darkness of night -- that's when their god was born and  
that's when they are all outside, going to church.


The answer above is not accurate:

Most biblical scholars and preachers readily admit that they know  
Jesus was not born on December 25th. However, they claim that this day  
is as good as any other to celebrate the birth of Jesus, despite the  
fact that it was originally a pagan celebration called Saturnalia  
which commemorated the birth of the sun god.

Determining the exact day of Jesus' birth is even more problematic  
than the year. Some say that the birth could not have happened in the  
deep winter, because the Bible says that shepherds spent the night  
outdoors with their flocks when Jesus was born (Luke 2:8). Paul L.  
Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas,  
Easter, and the Early Church, Kregel Publications (1998), p28

In the first 200 years of x-stian history, no mention is made of the  
calendar date of Jesus' birth. Not until the year 336 do we find the  
first mention of a celebration of his birth.

Why this omission? In the case of the Church fathers, the reason is  
that, during the three centuries after his life on earth, the event  
considered most worthy of commemoration was the date of his death. In  
comparison, the date of his birth was considered insignificant. As the  
Encyclopedia Americana explains, "xmas... was, according to many  
authorities, not celebrated in the first centuries of the xtian  
church, as the xtian usage in general was to celebrate the death of  
remarkable persons rather than their birth..." [probably patterned  
after yahrzeit] (1944 edition, "Christmas"). For several centuries,  
xtians paid little attention to the celebration of Jesus' birth. The  
major Christian festival was Easter, the day of his purported  
resurrection. Only as the church developed a calendar to commemorate  
the major events of the life of Jesus, did it celebrate his birth.  
Therefore, a date had to be selected and was done so arbitrarily.

Speculation on the proper date began in the 3rd and 4th centuries,  
when the idea of fixing his birthday started. Quite a controversy  
arose among Church leaders. Some were opposed to such a celebration.  
Origen (185-254) strongly recommended against such an innovation. "In  
the New Testament, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a  
great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners who make great  
rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this  
world" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908 edition, Vol. 3, p. 724, "Natal  
Day").

During this time eight specific dates during six different months were  
proposed by various groups. December 25, although one of the last  
dates to be proposed, was the one finally accepted by the leadership  
of the Western church.

The following is very interesting:

Since Jesus was conceived six months after John the Baptist, and a  
likely date was established for John's birth, we need only move six  
months farther down the Luach to arrive at a likely date for the birth  
of Jesus. From the 15th day of the 1st month, Nissan, we go to the  
15th day of the 7th month, Tishri. And what do we find on that date?  
It is the festival of Succos!


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071225/297b6817/attachment-0001.html 

[From discussion on Areivim]

With respect to the controversy over the origins of the 9th of Tevet, I delivered a shiur on this very topic two Shabbatot ago. While the shiur was primarily based on R. Prof. Shnayer Z. Leiman's classic article from the Jewish Quarterly Review, I offered at the end of the shiur a much simpler explanation into the reason why the author of Megillat Ta'anit Batra did not know what historical calamity is commemorated on that day, which flows directly from the passage immediately preceding the reference to the 9th of Tevet.

Megillat Ta'anit Batra explains that the 8th of Tevet commemorates the ?translation of the Torah into Greek during the days of Ptolemy the King and pursuant to which a darkness came into the world for THREE days.? While Prof. Leiman?s linkage of the fast of the 9th of Tevet to the yahrtzeit of St. Peter based on the Toldot Yeshu tradition and buttressed by the uncensored version of Rashi on Avoda Zara 10a is indeed compelling and makes for a delicious ?Jewish Da Vinci Code? story, I think that it is much more plausible to posit that the writing of the Septuagint was considered to be so catastrophic, to the extent that it was effectively equated to the three day plague of darkness in Mitzrayim, that the Rabbanan decreed a three day fast day! We have a biblical precedent for this from Megillat Esther. Since the 10th of Tevet was already designated as a fast day from the destruction of Bayit Rishon and the 8th of Tevet was deemed to be a fast day due to the Targum Shivim, I beli
 eve that the 9th of Tevet became a fast day not due to any independent event that coincided on that day but simply as it was the second day of a three day fast. If so, why did the author of Megillat Ta'anit Batra write that ?our Rabbis did not write what was the reason for instituting this fast day?? I would posit that the Rabbanan indeed provided the reason for this fast day as part of the three day fast lamenting the translation of the Septuagint, yet our author of Megillat Ta'anit Batra simply did not know this information that really was in front of him the entire time.

After I delivered the shiur, I was told by a neighbor to access Prof. Shulamit Elitzur?s critical edition of Megillat Ta'anit Batra, Lama Zamnu, that was published only this past summer, and sure enough, she makes the very same suggestion in the last footnote on her discussion of the 9th of Tevet; see footnote 170. Barukh Shekivanti l?Da?at Gedolot!

Anyone interested in accessing my sourcesheet and underlying materials is invited to go to http://the-eisens.com/9th_of_tevet_source_material.htm 

B?virkat HaTorah,
David Eisen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071226/a226dbb3/attachment-0001.htm 

On Areivim, Daniel Israel wrote:

>> And may someone adopted by Jews and converted to
>> Judaism as a child be able to be called by the adopted parents? names, 
>> or must he or she always be called to the Torah as a descendant of 
>> Abraham and Sarah?


> Actually, having despaired of finding this in the SA, and not having a 
> t'shuvah collection, I took a quick look in some popular English works 
> that I thought might be likely to address it.  Sure enough, R' Donin 
> says that it is mutar, but doesn't give a source.  Does anyone know of a 
> source one way or the other?  I can't imagine the shaila hasn't been 
> asked already.

I haven't seen anything written, but the practise as I have seen it,
both for adopted children and for gerim with Jewish bio-fathers, is
to call them up by their father's name, because of kavod habriot.

I know of no halacha that requires a person to be called to the Torah
by name at all, let alone specifying the form.  AFAIK one may call
someone in any way that will identify him and let him know to come up,
all the way from using the surname to "you in the back".  Indeed there
are shuls where people are *not* called by name but as "yaamod shelishi",
"yaamod revi'i", etc., the relevant people having been privately
notified in advance.  (There are also shuls where the names are all
publicly announced before kohen, and then before each aliya they are
called without names, but that's not what I'm talking about here.)

Since this is so, I see no reason not to call people by whatever name
they want to be called, whether by their biological father's name,
their adoptive mother's name, or anything else. 

I also understand, though I have not actually seen this, that in the
ketuba of a ger with a Jewish biological father his name would be
*written* as "ben Avraham Avinu", but would be *read* as "ben ploni",
because of kavod habriot.

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

On Tue, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:15:42PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: I haven't seen anything written, but the practise as I have seen it,
: both for adopted children and for gerim with Jewish bio-fathers, is
: to call them up by their father's name, because of kavod habriot.

This is the pesaq I was given lemaaseh, and is that of IM YD I:161. Others
require a suffix like "hammegadlo".

For Shuby, who is Jewish by birth, the pesaq is more complex. Some allow
just "ben Mikha Shemuel", others would only permit it with a qualified
"hammegadlo", either for the same reasons, or as a flag to remind people
to do extra checking before a shidduch. An adopted Jew won't know his
full list of arayos. Yet others would require using his birth father's
name. Shuby is now 9, so I haven't asked halakhah lemaaseh. For Mi
sheBeirakh, it's just my name, no qualifier. But there is little at risk.

This was discussed back in vol 7.

: I also understand, though I have not actually seen this, that in the
: ketuba of a ger with a Jewish biological father his name would be
: *written* as "ben Avraham Avinu", but would be *read* as "ben ploni",
: because of kavod habriot.

I would hate to be the mesadeir get for an adopted person's divorce.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Still a month behind in Avodah (after all, moderating Areivim is more
time sensitive).

But high on the  Neglected Amens list are 2 in Rosh Chodesh Bentching:
* After the Yehi Rotzon
* After Mi She'oso Nissim

- Danny


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 106
***************************************

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..."