Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 66

Mon, 11 Feb 2008

• 1. Re: The influence of Nusach Sefard on Nusach Ashkenaz (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. Re: Not Making Kiddush Between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Apocrypha (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Why Jewish Women should NOT wear a Burka (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Apocrypha (Richard Wolpoe)
• 6. Re: Why Jewish Women should NOT wear a Burka (Ken Bloom)
• 7. Re: Why Jewish Women should NOT wear a Burka (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 8. Re: The influence of Nusach Sefard on Nusach Ashkenaz (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Hesped in Nisan (Cantor Wolberg)
• 10. Re: Does God Change His Mind? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Why Jewish Women should NOT wear a Burka (or equivalent) (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 12. Re: Does God Change His Mind? (Michael Makovi)
• 13. ketoret klaf (SBA)

R' Yitzchok Levine wrote:
> I daven Nusach Ashkenaz and I put on Tefillin on Chol
> Moed, although without a brocha.  This was the almost
> universal custom in Chutz L'Aretz, as far as I know.
> I know that the GRA and his followers did not put on
> Tefillin on Chol Moed. There may be some others. However,
> today, due to the Chassidization of Yiddishkeit, there
> are a number of people who have stopped putting on
> Tefillin during Chol Moed.

You might be correct, but I hope not. It is one thing for non-Chassidim to Chassidize themselves with minhagim like wearing a kittel at the wedding, or having an upsheren at age three. But to abandon a possible d'Oraisa like tefilin? I shudder at the thought.

I would prefer to believe that it was a different route which caused this change. Namely, the GRA's minhag (as you wrote), which then became the universal Minhag Eretz Yisrael, and then spread to those who went to learn there, either for a short time, or a long time, or permanently.

Some evidence for my guess might be gathered by comparing how many men skip Tefilin on Chol Hamoed, and how many skip Baruch Hashem L'Olam at Maariv. I would hope that the great majority of Ashkenazim either do both or do neither. And that if anyone changed, they did it only after consulting with their rav.

Akiva Miller

_____________________________________________________________
Easy-to-use, advanced features, flexible phone systems.  Click here for more info.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3ohtXVMJBp1Y6mDye0p6cMXQA5dXSqgKh9rR9EHZUYnuwpSK/

On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 11:43:22AM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: (ATTENTION MODERATORS: This is a RESEND. Three digests have appeared
: since I posted it, so I'm guessing that you never received it. But it
: is possible that you did receive it, and are still discussing whether
: or not to publish it, in which case please ignore this copy.)

Avodah only has one moderator. I tend not to discuss posts among myself,
as it makes my wife nervous. I simply never got it. It's Areivim, with
its greater volume and more posts that walk the edge, that requires a
moderation team.

: When it is that we are under the influence of Mars? Well, Chazal knew
: (don't ask me how they knew) that seven specific "stars" exert their
: influence in a specific rotation. They follow one another in a specific
: sequence: Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon. They each get
: the same amount of time, and this sequence is repeated 24 times each week.
...
: Enter the Babylonians with their state-of-the-art arithmetic (I think
: their geometry and trig was pretty good too, but we don't need that
: for this) and behold: If the seven stars go through 24 cycles a week,
: then each turn lasts 1/24 of a day! An hour!

The Babylonians predated Chazal, and probably got their math from our
nevi'im. Their cultural explosion was during galus bavel. But this is
more like lifting their unit of measure -- we will now call this thing
an "hour" (or whatever is the proper Akkadian), and chazal lifted the
Tanach's word meaning "a point of time" and used it for this unit --
sha'ah.

: Next: Are these Shaos Zmanios or Shaos Shavos? Well, consider this. We
: are not dealing with half of the morning. We are not dealing with the
: late afternoon. We are not dealing with anything that has anything to
: do with sunrise or sunset. Rather, we are dealing with the larger solar
: system as a whole. Each star gets a turn lasting 1/168 of a week.

Which means it has nothing to do with Babylonians. The Babylonian hour
was not equal across a week or 1/24 of a day. It was 1/12 of the daylight
period, or 1/12 of the night. Except on the equinox (first day of fall
or spring), the nighttime hour wouldn't be the same as the daytime,
and in any case, Sunday's wouldn't be exactly the same as the following
Shabbos's.

And the Babybonians started the 12 hours from dawn. Which for standard
hours will give you a different answer than counding 6 hours from noon.

: Why would a star's turn be longer during a summer daytime than a winter
: daytime, or than a summer night? ....

But I will ask about your basic assumption: that the planets get turns of
equal duration. Why? Who knows why would planets get turns influencing
events on earth altogether. Why is "equal" more reasonable than a
celestian unit, the solar hour? Not saying it's less; just that I don't
understand any of it, and therefore will question any assumption of what
makes more sense.

And if they do, why is it subject to where on earth you are? Why not
simply assume even shesi'ah time, and not make qiddush between 1am and
2am EST Shabbos morning? The fact that it is related to your location on
the planet /would/ better fit solar time.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 07:30:55PM +0200, Michael Makovi wrote:
: Are you saying that without Chazal mentioning Sefer Enoch, we can't be
: sure which pesukim of it are kosher and wish aren't? ...

I mean it's simply not a source or proof of something. Quoting Apocrypha
tells me nothing about Torah I don't insert through my assessment of
the text using Torah I already know. Of interest to historians, but off
topic for talmud Torah.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
micha@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rabbi Israel Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 03:47:26PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
: I don't know if someone made this point already or not: Chumros of this 
: extreme magnitude are symptomatic of OCD, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

No, but on Areivim it was noted that this seems like a body control
issue, like anorexia.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

On Feb 9, 2008 11:06 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> I mean it's simply not a source or proof of something. Quoting Apocrypha
> tells me nothing about Torah I don't insert through my assessment of
> the text using Torah I already know. Of interest to historians, but off
> topic for talmud Torah.
>
> Gut Voch!
> -Micha
>

Totally tangential:
During debates about how the mizbeaych was placed in the Mikdash or how high
was teh mizbeyahc etc. the various Tanna'im cite P'sukkim proving their
cases.

Question: wouldn't the reality f the Midkdahs itself be the single best raya
for how it looked?  Would  anyone think that a disputed drashsa would trump
the reality of the Miazbeyahc prior to year 70?

Why didn't Tannaim - who lived just  70-100  years after teh Hurban simply
cite Masorah from eyewithness?  Was their no insitutional memory of how the
Mikdash looked within 100 Years?
Or were those memories inherently inferior to a drasha - even a disputed
one?

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080210/5495f328/attachment-0001.htm 

On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 12:19 -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
> I would suggest that the story highlights the fact that the word
> tzeni'us has two meanings. Originally, it referred to not calling
> undue attention to oneself, trying to avoid the spotlight. Because sex
> is such an attention getter, that grew to include covering ervah. But
> whether or not my suggestion that covering ervah is a derived, non
> primary meaning of the word, the basic point stands: not drawing
> attention to oneself and covering ervah are distinct ideas, both
> called tzeni'us.
> 
> Here is a case where people go to such extent to cover ervah that they
> do draw undue attention to themselves. Ironically, by being tzanu'os,
> they are violating tzeni'us (switching meanings of the word
> midsentence).

I doubt that the word tzeni'ut has two meanings. More likely, covering
erva is only tzeni'ut to the extent that it eliminates an
attention-getter. Once the covering would becomes an attention getter in
and of itself, it would no longer be tzeni'ut in *any* sense of the
word. Does this seem more correct?

--Ken

-- 
Ken (Chanoch) Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080210/f4ed1513/attachment-0001.pgp 

Haven't been following this thread closely but apparently in the tme of 
the Mishna  this was normative

Shabbos (80a) notes that eye makeup  for one eye is significant since  
in cities  they wore veils and only one eye was uncovered.

   " STIBIUM, FOR PAINTING ONE EYE: But one eye [alone] is not painted? 
? Said R. Huna: Because modest women paint [only] one eye.20 An 
objection is raised: As for stibium, if [carried out] for medicinal use, 
[the standard is] as much as is required for painting one eye;21 if for 
adornment, [the standard is] two eyes? ? Hillel son of R. Samuel b. 
Nahmani explained it: That was taught in reference to small-towners.22"

Daniel Eidensohn

On Feb 10, 2008 6:58 AM, kennethgmiller@juno.com <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
wrote:

>
>
> You might be correct, but I hope not. It is one thing for non-Chassidim to
> Chassidize themselves with minhagim like wearing a kittel at the wedding, or
> having an upsheren at age three. But to abandon a possible d'Oraisa like
> tefilin? I shudder at the thought.
>
> I would prefer to believe that it was a different route which caused this
> change. Namely, the GRA's minhag (as you wrote), which then became the
> universal Minhag Eretz Yisrael, and then spread to those who went to learn
> there, either for a short time, or a long time, or permanently.
>
> Some evidence for my guess might be gathered by comparing how many men
> skip Tefilin on Chol Hamoed, and how many skip Baruch Hashem L'Olam at
> Maariv. I would hope that the great majority of Ashkenazim either do both or
> do neither. And that if anyone changed, they did it only after consulting
> with their rav.
>
> Akiva Miller
>
>
FWIW I agree mostly with your assessment.
Tanegntially since minhag avos was throwrn out with regard to Baruch Hashem
l'olam and Tefilln on Hulo shel Moed, why bother keeping it with Kitniyyos?

Or iow by what criteria did SOME minhag ashkenaz survive the assaults of
Hassidism as well as the followers of the GRA and not otherwise?

At least for the most part [excpet probably for the innovation of  dancing
on Simchas Torah] Yekkes are pretty consistent.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080210/177c9410/attachment-0001.htm 

The way I've seen it handled (when it involved a choshuva person)  
was:  Today is (chol hamoed, Nissan, or whatever) and it is not  
allowed to deliver a eulogy,
but if it were another day when a eulogy was permitted, I would have  
told you......  Then at the end the rav would say, so unfortunately  
I'm not able to tell you
what I would have told you had it been permitted. I'm sure you  
understand. (and of course the last four words have a double entendre).

ri

On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 11:04:31AM +0200, Michael Makovi wrote:
: I guess I don't see the problem. Rather, the negative attributes
: approach seems to make Hashem into an automaton with no personality.

Calling Him "an automaton" is a positive attribute. Negative attributes
are based on the ideas that:
- There is no way to understand what He is, therefore we can only discuss
  what He isn't
- Positive attributes imply divisibility -- Hashem's essence and the
  attribute

Thusk, He isn't emotionless; Hashem is such that emotion is simply not a
relevant concept. Hashem has as much emotion as the Star Spangled Banner
has mass, or the color of "1+1 = 2". The adjective isn't appropriate
for the noun. Emotionless is saying it's appropriate, but the value is
zero. A photon has no mass in a different way than the Star Spangled
Banner has no mass.

: If Hashem really does get angry when we sin, nu? It's not a change in
: His essence, it's merely a change in how He considers us...

But, as I wrote, change itself is a nonsensical concept when speaking
of the Creator of time. Without time separating these emotions, even
if one said HQBH has emotions -- they would all have to be (for want of
better language) "at once". Meaningless.

...
: So I fail to see the theological problem with Rabbi Berkovits's
: approach; adarabba, the negative attributes approach strips Hashem of
: personality and moreover seems to be based on Aristotelian and
: Muslim-Aristotelian philosophy, with no Torah basis that I know of.
...

And yet EVERY seifer machashavim from a rishon that we till have agrees
with this "Muslim-Aristotelian philosophy". Even the scraps we have
left of Meqor Chaim (ibn Greirol) never mind more famous texts like
RSG, the Rambam, the Ikkarim, Rashi on Chumash, the Kuzari.... WADR,
that would make /me/ question my assumptions.

And does demonstrate how REB is willing to again step beyond the
mainstream.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
micha@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:12:11 +0200
> From: "AY & CB Walters" <acwalters@bluebottle.com>

> The Pele Yo'etz says that he praises the Bnei Hayishma'eilim whose wives
> totally cover up


This is the same Pele Yo'etz who says not to marry a widow unless you're an 
old man;

The same Pele Yo'etz who says that if a woman is married to an evil man who 
beats her she should accept her fate b/c she'll have a large reward in the 
Next World.

OTOH, he said that if parents realize that their kids are tough, who don't 
have Yirat Hashem and don't listen to their parents, then the parents 
shouldn't make requests of them and should make an effort not to be angry to 
talk harshly to them, but rather that they should talk softly to them.

While apparently he was a great Tzaddik, he was also known as a Sagfan.

Shoshana L. Boublil

> : I guess I don't see the problem. Rather, the negative attributes
> : approach seems to make Hashem into an automaton with no personality.
> Me

> Calling Him "an automaton" is a positive attribute. Negative attributes
> are based on the ideas that:
> - There is no way to understand what He is, therefore we can only discuss
>   what He isn't
> - Positive attributes imply divisibility -- Hashem's essence and the
>   attribute
> Micha

But also, describing what He isn't, makes absolutely no sense. If we
say that He is merciful only to say that He is not cruel (but in
truth, He is not merciful either), couldn't we just as well say that
He is cruel so as to deny that He is merciful? If He is neither
merciful nor cruel, just say that He has no character traits at all,
and leave Him as completely undefined. To ascribe to Him something He
is not, just to negate another thing that He is also not, when He is
just as much not the one as He is not the other, is completely
nonsensical.

> Thusk, He isn't emotionless; Hashem is such that emotion is simply not a
> relevant concept. Hashem has as much emotion as the Star Spangled Banner
> has mass, or the color of "1+1 = 2". The adjective isn't appropriate
> for the noun. Emotionless is saying it's appropriate, but the value is
> zero. A photon has no mass in a different way than the Star Spangled
> Banner has no mass.

So leave it at that. Say He has no traits, and zeo.

I recall that Rabbi Isidore Epstein in The Faith of Judaism says that
many think that by denying Hashem character traits and personality,
they're making Him higher, but really, all they're doing is making Him
meaningless for our lives.

I forget whether Rabbi Epstein takes this as far as Rabbi Berkovits,
but in any case, it is clear IMHO that Hashem does have some sort of
personality. The Tanach says He is merciful and that He punishes as
does a father to a son, and I see no reason to take this at anything
but face value.

I'll return to this topic shortly.

> : If Hashem really does get angry when we sin, nu? It's not a change in
> : His essence, it's merely a change in how He considers us...
>
> But, as I wrote, change itself is a nonsensical concept when speaking
> of the Creator of time. Without time separating these emotions, even
> if one said HQBH has emotions -- they would all have to be (for want of
> better language) "at once". Meaningless.

That's why I said that He does change with respect to us.

Let me make a comparison to calculus: If I have y = x^2 (squared),
then the equation does not change. It is constantly y=x^2. BUT, at any
given point, the rate of change of y changes. dy = d(x^2)dx --> dy =
2x. The rate of change at any given point is double what x is at that
point.

Similarly, Hashem in His essence or nature never changes. BUT, with
respect to us, Hashem changes His reaction. When we sin, He notices,
and He acts accordingly. Is this a change in Him? YES! And His being
angry at us is no less a change.

So if one is going to deny Him character traits and personality, you'd
better deny Him providence and activity in the world too, if you want
to be consistent. With good reason did Aristotle make an Unmoved
Mover. If Hashem has no character, why should He have behavior?

> : So I fail to see the theological problem with Rabbi Berkovits's
> : approach; adarabba, the negative attributes approach strips Hashem of
> : personality and moreover seems to be based on Aristotelian and
> : Muslim-Aristotelian philosophy, with no Torah basis that I know of.
> ...
>
> And yet EVERY seifer machashavim from a rishon that we till have agrees
> with this "Muslim-Aristotelian philosophy". Even the scraps we have
> left of Meqor Chaim (ibn Greirol) never mind more famous texts like
> RSG, the Rambam, the Ikkarim, Rashi on Chumash, the Kuzari.... WADR,
> that would make /me/ question my assumptions.

With the exception of Ikkarim and Kuzari, all of these texts are
heavily dependent on Aristotelian or Mutakkilistic philosophy. Both of
these are un-Jewish. Even Kuzari, however, still relies on much Greek
philosophy - for example, He merely modifies the Aristotelian Active
Intellect to be based on perfection of deed rather than intellect (and
also to apply to Jews only), but the basic concept is identical.
Ikkarim I don't know about.

And let's say that every single rishon in the world holds like this.
However, Chazal are silent on this issue - Chazal never seem (AFAIK)
to see a problem in ascribing Hashem traits. Therefore, we should
assume, IMHO, that Chazal took the Tanach at face value and indeed do
ascribe traits to Hashem. The rishonim did an okimta, but Chazal did
not.

So the rishonim based on Greek philosophy saw a problem, but Chazal
based on Jewish philosophy did not.

REB's approach in God Man and History seems to be that indeed, this
negative attributes business is a totally Greek-philosophy thing, and
from what I've seen, I see no grounds on which to disagree. Not that
this will hold water in anyone's eyes, but I think all the secular
scholars agree with REB on this.

> And does demonstrate how REB is willing to again step beyond the
> mainstream.

Rav Hirsch stepped beyond the mainstream too with TIDE and by
suggesting that the Torah is an anthropology and not concerned with
mysticism. But if you ask me, he got a lot closer to the Biblical
theology in this matter than the mainstream.

In any case, I've never been too concerned with what the majority
thinks. My social experiences in elementary and middle schools ensured
that only by ceasing to care what the majority think could I survive
mentally. I can elaborate on Areivim if anyone wishes.

Mikha'el Makovi

From: "L Reich" < >
.. a Talmid Chochom of substance, has expressed reservation about this
Ketoros on Klaf Segulah. This passage is a Bryso ... part of Torah Sh'Baal
Peh. ... TSB"P should remain and remembered in verbal form and not be put
into writing.This dictum was suspended in extremis to prevent Torah to be
forgotten. ...hence to use it for a "Segulah" is pointless or worse.
My friend has discussed the matter with a number of Gedolim including R'
Chaim Kanievsky, he tells me, and all concur.
..................

Some yeshiva donated a large version of the Ketores on Klaf in a nice frame
to our Shul.
Underneath it, it notes that this segula is mentioned by the Seder Hayon and

Kaf HaChaim

SBA






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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 66
**************************************

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..."