Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 86

Fri, 29 Feb 2008

• 1. Re: Jewish Music (Arie Folger)
• 2. Re: Jewish Music (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: Ashkenazim and Sephardim (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Re: Love the ger - who? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. Re: Hot Cheese for Shabbat Lunch (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 6. Re: history (Rich, Joel)
• 7. The Klausenberger Rebbe on Zionism after the Holocaust (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: The Kiddushin "raid" in Lakewood (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Roast lamb (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Re: Roast lamb (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Girl Scout cookies (Akiva Blum)

RMB wrote:
> (Using TIDE loosely, as RSRH was vehemently and vociferously against
> Hildesheimer Seminary's use of Chokhmas Yisrael (O Wissenschaft), and
> Hildesheimer's preached vehemently against Austritt.)

And AFAIK, REH was nonetheless the rov of Berlin's austritt community (which 
was located on the same street as Zacharias Fraenkel's seminary, the 
Artilleriestrasse. People used to say one seminary represents the minor 
artillery, while the other one the major artillery ;-))

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

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
>
> (Using TIDE loosely, as RSRH was vehemently and vociferously against
> Hildesheimer Seminary's use of Chokhmas Yisrael (O Wissenschaft), and
> Hildesheimer's preached vehemently against Austritt.)
>
> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha
>
>
I don't know the source for this statement -can it be provided?
Accordgin to the Klugman Bio of Rabbiner Hirsch:


   1. Hirsch  - kept his council [iow his opposition to Wissenshaft
   inBerlin] quiet
   2. Hildesheimer WAS an Austritt Community!
   3. Hildesheimer spoke at RSRH's levaya

What IS true - and I have expeirenced this in a derivative form myslef
is that Fnakfort had a very RIGID, STRICT view of Austritt while Berlin was
more loose and liberal about it.

A native of Frnakfort confided to me months before his passing:
"When I met religous members of the Geminde Orthodox while on vacation - who
could learn Gmera was well as anyone- I realived that Austritt was wrong..."

The problem with Austritt - aisi -was not the exlclusoin of Reform - but
what I call Austritt Sqauared - the exclusion of any Orthodox that still
dealt with Reform.

IOW, Austritt meant the shunning of Ortho'x [such as Yu/RCA types] who had
ANY dealings with non-Ortho's.  This iswhat I call Austritt to the 2nd
power, not only are Reform our enemies, but any Ortho that does not demonize
Reform is my enemy.  That  caused a rift amongst Orthodoxy that still plays
out today.

Hildeshiemer was against having rifts. [caveat: That does not mean that
EVERYTHING they did was perfect!] Just that darchei Shalom amongst fellow
Ortho'x seeems to be me more important. At any rate. Herr HItler Yimach
shemo ended all Austrit by convincing ALL Jews in Germanyt hat they had
common cause.  Jsut like it took Haman to give more Mussar than nevi'im,
Hilter taught German Jews how to get along after decades of  squabling and
quibbling.


-- 
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-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080228/e6c4d527/attachment.htm 

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:52 AM, <T613K@aol.com> wrote:

>  In Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 101 dated 12/20/2007 R' Michael Elzufon <
> Michael@arnon.co.il>
> writes:
>
> >>What is the source for the claim that Ashkenazi practice came from Eretz
> Israel and Sephardi practice came from Bavel?  My impression has always
> been the opposite. <<
>
>
>
> >>>>>
> I'm coming back to an issue that was raised a couple of months ago,
> because I found something relevant in Berel Wein's book *Herald of Destiny:
> The Story of the Jews in the Medieval Era 750-1650*
>
> He writes: "The reason there emerged, in the early Middle Ages, two
> distinct ethnic and cultural groupings, Sephardic and Ashkenazic, is a
> subject of much scholarly conjecture and controversy." (pg. 78)
>
> Then he has the following footnote, which I quote in full:
>
> ==begin quote==
>
> See, for example, H.J. Zimmels, /Ashkenazim and Sephardim/, (London,
> 1958), pp.1-10, for a review of this question.  Regarding the geographical
> origins that provided the basis for the initial split of the people into two
> groupings, there are also various theories.  Several maintain that the
> Sephardim were mainly Babylonian Jews who brought their customs to Europe,
> while the Ashkenazim were descendants of Palestinian Jews.  Other theories
> reverse these antecedents, making the original Ashkenazim Babylonian and the
> Sephardim Palestinian.  Still others identify the Sephardim as descendants
> of Jews from Jerusalem and southern Palestine, and the Ashkenazim as
> descendants of Jews from northern Palestine.  In short, we can say with
> certainty the precise origins of the distinct groupings are uncertain.
>
> ==end quote==
>
> I think that probably ends the whole subject here on Avodah, although if
> any of our distinguished chaverim have further insights into this question
> I'd be most interested to hear them.
>
>
> *--Toby Katz
> =============*
>

Tne answer is simple:
Ashekanzic Liturgy kept Kallir from Israel and Meshulam Ben Kalonymos of
Lucca Italy. IT is fairly well-established fact that Ashkenaz ,looked up to
Italy and Italy to Israel in terms of Minhaggim etc.

Sephardim opposed Piyyutim in Yotzros. Ashkeanzim reveled in it. This can
ONLY be becasue they favored Minhag EY over Bavel.

Ibn Ezra smashed Kallir. Tosafos made him into a Tanna. The rest is history!


-- 
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-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080228/4af8d280/attachment.html 

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
wrote:

> It seems impossible to deny that the word "ger" doesn't mean, strictly
> speaking, a convert, but rather anyone who is a stranger or foreigner
> or alien. Indeed, Avraham and Moshe call themselves gerim, and we are
> described as having been gerim in Egypt, and obviously no conversions
> were involved.
>
> Mikha'el Makovi


this point ws brought to my attendtion jsut last night in my restaurant by a
relatively new Ba'al Teshuva. he expressed great mis-givings about how
Rabbis {meaning today's rabbis not hazal per se]  can be trusted when they
morph the meaning of a word like Ger to mean something else. and he quoted
some of the above. The fellow is NOT a scholar and know very little but he
has found these kinds of transmigrations of the word disturbing.

I had no answer for him.  I could probably muster some sophisticate answer
that would satisfy the scholarly types but not one that would  help  him.


-- 
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-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080228/7733e58b/attachment.htm 

On the topic of what is <<< fleishig mid'oraisa >>>, R' Yitzhak Grossman wrote:

> Actually, Maran [0] and Shach [1] rule that fowl isn't
> m'd'oraisa, Rema doesn't disagree, and although Shach cites
> a dissenting view of some Aharonim, he states that "harbeh
> poskim m'od" rule that it isn't.

But that was in the context of basar b'chalav, which doesn't have anything to do with the simcha or oneg which one gets from eating it.

(Historical note: After the current thread began with a question about
Bishul Achar Bishul, it quickly branched off into discussions about what we
can/should eat on Shabbos and Yom Tov. Recently it also got into Basar
B'Chalav, and I just wanted to remind everyone not to conflate these last
two items.)

On the topic of eating fowl on Shabbos and Yom Tov, I have found it
noteworthy that when we were in the midbar and complained about the lack of
"basar" to eat, Hashem answered us by sending fowl. From context, it seems
clear to me that He expected the fowl to meet our definition of what we
were asking for -- i.e., that fowl (or at least that particular species)
meets the definition of "basar" in that context. This does not necessarily
prove that fowl provides *enough* oneg or simcha to satisfy Hilchos Shabbos
V'YomTov, but still, I think it is noteworthy.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Save hundreds on getting a Web Design Degree. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3oHUFAur2q0IYWG8aXbWNMTKjA54xm9dbl76nBZ4vZ81f0ZU/

 


> This whole attitude is so a-historical as to be disturbing

And Tosfos about Pinchas, Eliyahu, and Beis Hakvaros?

We have discussed before that chazal have a tendency to identify
together people who seem to have nothing in common.
===============================
IIRC we also discussed the universal conservation of personalities
theory (that chazal had some message in these identifications)

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.

I highly recommend
<http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/shoah/10shoah.htm> by R' Tamir
Granot.

The KR posits that Esther and Mordechai partook in a machloqes as to
whether one should try for a partial yeshua, or hold out for a
complete one from HQBH. Esther was asking for ta'anis and teshuvah so
that we would merit a complete yeshua, not a simple pragmatic survival
brought about through the aegis of a person.

A machloqes he also finds during the Napoleanic Wars, between Rabbi
Menachem Mendel of Rimanov and the Rabbi of Ropshitz.

The implications WRT 1948 are obvious, but it's worth seeing the full
development of the initial idea to see how he plays it out.

I'm reminded of something from Rav Dovid Lifshitz. My rebbe celebrated
Yom haAtzmaut, but only as a partial victory. We have *atzmaut*, but
the *etzem* of Klal Yisrael still needs to be restored.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:

> Is it possible to compare this case to that of Orach Chayim 658:5?
> 
> The Mechaber there says that if Reuven handed his lulav to Shimon (on
> the first day of Sukkos, when ownership is required) without specifying
> whether it is a gift or a loan, that is good enough, and it is as if
> Reuven had said that it is a "gift on condition to return it", because
> that's what's needed for Shimon to be yotzay, so we are "omed" that
> that's what they had in mind.

The idea of an analogy to lulav actually came to me yesterday, but in the
opposite direction.  The Mishna describing the order in the BHMK on the
Shabbos of Sukkos says that everybody brought a lulav before Shabbos,
and on the day everybody would get a lulav, but no attempt at all was made
to keep track of who owned each lulav.  Instead, each person was told when
depositing his lulav to be makneh it to whoever would get it the next day.
Now if this sort of kinyan I proposed, whereby when a person accepts an
object as a return of the one he deposited the ownership automatically
transfers, why would each person need to make an explicit declaration to
that effect?

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

On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Richard Wolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Jan 22, 2008 9:30 AM, Elazar M. Teitz <remt@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > R. Rich Wolpoe writes:
> >
> > <Roasting in a pot is not halachically roasting at all in Yorei Dei'ah
> > even w/o any added water. [the meat will ooze its juices soon enough].
> >
> >
>
> Any source earlier than the Magen Avraham on this?  Anyone [asidee from
> Sephardim] that do not buy into this Chumra?
>
> --
> Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
> RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
> see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/



Yep there is another source

The Aruch hashulchan. I saw it today and Baruch Hashem he was mechaven to my
point!  <big smile!>

Of course the Avodah universe should have genuflected to the infallible RRW
first, but since people are not infallibe as I am, they needed PROOF.

All kidding aside, it is sometimes a wonder why a good sevara needs a
Gadol?  Whatever happend to al tistakel bekankan ella...!   Today's world
[rigth and left] is so enamored with authors and not  good Torah.  As I
creep past middle age I was nostalgic for the good old Litvisher Rabbanim
who were not enamored by NAMES but by quality Torah.

As one haver recnetly seemed to suggest we should determine the correctnes
of the sevara by taking an IQ test of the sovrim!   Whatevev happend to
plain logical. reason, Sevara, Sechel hayashar!


-- 
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/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080228/50a1d782/attachment-0001.html 

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:35:46PM -0500, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
:>> Roasting in a pot is not halachically roasting at all in Yorei Dei'ah
:>> even w/o any added water. [the meat will ooze its juices soon enough].

:> Any source earlier than the Magen Avraham on this?  Anyone [asidee from
:> Sephardim] that do not buy into this Chumra?

: Yep there is another source

: The Aruch hashulchan. I saw it today and Baruch Hashem he was mechaven to my
: point!  <big smile!>
...
: All kidding aside, it is sometimes a wonder why a good sevara needs a
: Gadol?  Whatever happend to al tistakel bekankan ella...!   

Actually, I don't think the quote is appropriate. Al tistaqeil isn't
about the quality of the thought, but not judging the quality of the
thinker by his chitzoniyus.

But it's nothing new to want to base practice on the most Torah-emersed
sources. Teshuvos frequently bow to the greatness of other rabbanim.(Even
if it seems to usually be to explain how their sevara doesn't apply to
the case in question.)

A question being discussed in another thread is how seriously to take
this idea when proposing new answers to old *machashavah* questions.
Such as HQBH having emotions. (Phrased this way, my personal answer
is: when contradicting, a great deal. When innovating new or already
conflicted territory, not so much.)

But within the realm of halakhah, I thought it was pretty uncontraversial
that the authority of an idea must take into account not only conscious
reasoning but immersion in the Torah weltenschaung, and thus must be
weighed *including* the stature of the speaker (not A or B, both). As
we can't hope to skip up the ladder in order to assess the disputant's
weltenschung, this means assigning some measure of blind authority.
As something to be weighed (to tie it into that debate) when making a
halachic decision.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

>>>

Second, we don't do bitul  
intentionally.  For both of these reasons the cookie is dairy, and  can't 
be eaten after meat.

<<<

>>This isn't  intentional. It was already botul when she received  it.<<

>>>
The whey was not added by the girl who sold the cookies, but it WAS  added 
intentionally.  It doesn't matter /who/ added it.  It was still  added 
intentionally.  It's right there in the ingredients list!  What  more proof do you need 
that it was intentional??  And it's not as if just  one box or one batch 
happened to have a little whey dropped in.  They  keep doing it! 

<<<

(FWIW, the "she" is the wife, not the girl)

Generally, the intention we refer to is the intention for bitul, not the intention for adding.
However, where the addition was made for a specific person, we consider it
as if that person himself intended to add, and therefore to do bitul. In
the case of a producer for selling to Jews as well as non-Jews, and there
is an increase in production because of the Jews, it is considered as if
the Jews themselves added bemaizid (Tshuvas Rashbash quoted by Darkei
Tshuva 108, and KSA of Rav Pfeifer).
In our case, even bemaizid isn't milchik because there's no issur here.

Akiva





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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 86
**************************************

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..."