Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 120

Wed, 02 Apr 2008

• 1. Heicha Kedusha (was: Skipping Korbanos) (Aryeh Herzig)
• 2. Re: Skipping Korbanos (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: What is a saris? (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Tiqun Olam (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: "Kol Chamira" (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Skipping Korbanos (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: WTG (Stadlan, Noam)
• 8. Re: Skipping Korbanos (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 9. Re: schechtworthy (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Re: schechtworthy (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: schechtworthy (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Skipping Korbanos (SBA)
• 13. Re: Skipping Korbanos (SBA)
• 14. Mutzkeh: Sticks, Stones, and Pets (kennethgmiller@juno.com)

I once heard a cute Vort BDerech HaLatza by the Shedlitzer Rebbe (R. Weisblum) of Lakewood:

The Gemara in Nedarim talks about the Maor SheBetTorah.  Hence the Torah is called Maor.

Rashi in Tetsaveh on Kosis LaMaor says: "Kosis LaMaor VLo Kasis LaMenachoth."  

Rather squeeze the Maor - the Torah sedorim - but don't squeeze the the tefillos of Mincha (heicha kedusha, no korbanos etc.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080401/dfd224b6/attachment.html 

 


Secondly don't Chazal say "Zman Torah lechud uzman tefilla lechud"?

========================
Not so pashut - could be a machloket - see shabbat 10a

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.

SBA wrote:
> From: Zev Sero <>
> As for Haman, if saris is meant literally, perhaps he was castrated for
> the sake of his career after he had his children.
> 
> So then why did Achasverosh get upset at him saying
>  "Hagam lichbosh es hamalka imi baboyis"?

This is a family forum, so I won't go into details, but let me just say
that there are details to be gone into.  The main advantage of having
eunuchs in the harem was that the king could be sure the children were
all his.


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

Michael Makovi wrote:

> Aleynu uses tikkun olam

Aleynu does not say "tikun olam"; it says "letaken olam *bemalchut
ShDY*".  Those last two words are the ikkar, not the tafel, and those
who use the term "tikun olam" definitely do not mean them at all.
I have never heard a frum person use the term "tikun olam" or refer
to it at all as a Jewish value; AFAIK it is entirely a foreign
concept, and even the term is not used anywhere Jewish - the closest
we come is the takanot that were made "mipnei tikun ha'olam".

Similar objections to slogans formed by quoting half of a genuine
source while leaving out the ikkar:

1. Some of the people who were organising public demonstrations against
the USSR in the '60s used the slogan "Shalach et `ami", which was a
corruption of the original source, whose main word is "veya`avduni".
They meant "shalach et `ami" to be hefker, and had no right to use
the pasuk to imply that this was some sort of Jewish idea.

2. BILU in the 1880s, shouted "Beis Yisroel Lechu Veneilcho" (they
hadn't yet invented the pseudo-Sefardi accent), but deliberately
left out "Be'or Hashem".  The then-LR, the RaShaB, commented at the
time that if only they'd added the "Be'or Hashem" he'd have joined
them.  (His father the Rebbe MaHaRaSh, once threatened the Russian
government that if they didn't relent on some decree he would order
all his chassidim to shift to EY, and devastate the Russian economy.)


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

SBA wrote:
> Can anyone remember?
> Have we previously discussed the reason for the 2 quite different
> nuschaos for "Kol Chamira" - which are said at night and the next day?

I don't recall a discussion, but the difference is obvious.  If I came
into your house after bedikat chametz and took all the food you'd saved
for dinner and for tomorrow's breakfast, you'd be furious.  You certainly
haven't been mafkir it!


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

Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:

> I don't know, I have never seen V'yiten Lecha said in a Nusach Ashkenaz
> Shul, whether or not Yeshivish. FWIW, I can never remember seeing it said in
> a Nusach Sefard Shul, either. I do see some people saying it themselves
> after Maariv is already over. 

It's davka Nusach Ashkenaz that says it in shul during maariv.  Nusach
Sfard (Chasidim) is to say it at home after havdalah.


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

The topic of WTG has to be seen in its historical context.  RYBS then and
many today now still think of it as an expression of "women are just as good
as men and can do anything a man can do" brand of feminism(Prof. Tamar Ross
has a very enlightening history of feminism as part of her book, Expanding
the Palace of Torah).  There is a serious lack of appreciation that the
impetus behind today's WTG's(at least the ones that I am familiar with) is
that the WTG imparts a greater amount of kavannah and learning.  If proof is
needed, it is in the fact that the WTGs continue to exist despite the option
of the 'Shirah Chadasha' more egalitarian minyanim. 

Noam Stadlan 

<<Thirdly, (maybe the Lakewooders can answer this),how many davveners
of this mini version of Mincha immediately sit down to learn. And how many
simply go home to eat, nap or do shopping?>>

<True, but they have to do that anyway, right? So this way, they get
back to second Seder faster. That's the theory, anyway, I think. The other
reason I've heard for Heicha Kedusha, BTW, is that it's better to say only
three Berachos out loud: It's more likely that the Kahal will be Mechaven
with the appropriate Amens for those than if the Chazan would recite all
nineteen Berachos.>

     So why is hoiche kedusha nver said on Shabbos? It's easier to be mechaven for three than for seven, too. 

<<I recall once when the local Lakewood Kollel had a Shabaton out of
town with one of the guset speakers being Rabbi C Keller from Chicago.
Motzeh Shabbos after Maariv I noticed that they didn't say "Veyen Lecho". I
queried this with RK, who explained that it isn't said in (Litvish)
yeshivos for reasons of 'bitul Torah'.
I asked him to show me a single person in this room, who is now learning Torah?  Teiku.>>

<I don't know, I have never seen V'yiten Lecha said in a Nusach Ashkenaz
Shul, whether or not Yeshivish. FWIW, I can never remember seeing it said
in a Nusach Sefard Shul, either. I do see some people saying it themselves
after Maariv is already over.> 

     If you want to see it said, you're invited to spend a Shabbos in
     Elizabeth, where all five shuls say it.  If you're in Yerushalayim, go
     to the Gra shul in Sha'arei Chesed, and daven in the rabbanim's minyan
     (the one that was attended by RSZA).  They say it.

EMT
_____________________________________________________________
Learn how to build web sites.  Find a web design school near you.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/REAK6aAYuuhitqlUT2TIMehEzrUsMLDMQYWjs9UAfNYzyWXcDuk7sW/

I wrote:

>>who fails
> > to divorce his wife in accordance with the Mishna in Kesubos which
> > would seem to require it.

And RMYG replied:

> Rambam Hilchos Ishus 24:14 implies that he doesn't have to divorce her if
> he
> doesn't want to. 

Actually, I think he states it explicitly in 24:16 - ain kofin es haba'al
l'hotezia ela im ratza lo yozia.

However The Shulchan Aruch siman 115 si'if 4 after stating like the Rambam -
ain kofin oso l'hotzeia adds mikol makom mitzvah alav shyoziena (and note
that the Rema says that the takana of Rabbanu Gershom that she cannot be
divorced against her will does not apply here).

It is also interesting to note that the Rambam in 24:16 is explicitly
talking about a woman who is over on daas Yehudis *and* daas Moshe.  On the
other hand, this Shulchan Aruch is brought at the end of the si'if on daas
Yehudis, and it is not at all clear to me that he is necessarily applying it
to the daas Moshe situation.

And, in many ways it is hard to see (leaving aside the hair covering case)
how a man who wants to be shomrei mitzvos can remain married to such a
woman.  As we have been discussing on Areivim, the concept of eid echad is
learnt out from the woman counting days for herself, and the husband can
rely on her.  But if she has proved herself to be unreliable in this regard
(which is precisely one of the cases) and has lost her hezkas kashrus in
this respect, how exactly is he to remain married to her?  Admittedly if it
is merely a matter of feeding him treif, then I guess he could remain
married to her but not eat anything she prepared, but if it was in relation
to hilchos nida, I confess I struggle somewhat with the Rambam (unless he is
saying that she forfeits her right of onah, and he is not considered a
mored).

The point of the Mishnah, AIUI, is that if he does, he
> doesn't have to pay her Kesubah. 

That is true in any event (ie whether he wants to divorce her or not), but I
think the implication of the Mishna is more than this, as the Shulchan Aruch
brings.  

Note, before anybody jumps up and down about this, that it is quite clear
from all the sources that this is only true in a situation where he doesn't
want to eat treif or be boel nida and is led to the action unsuspectingly,
not in a case where he knows the full circumstances and goes along with it
(or is an equal perpetrator).

> KT,
> MYG

Regards

Chana

Chana Luntz wrote:

> However The Shulchan Aruch siman 115 si'if 4 after stating like the Rambam -
> ain kofin oso l'hotzeia adds mikol makom mitzvah alav shyoziena (and note
> that the Rema says that the takana of Rabbanu Gershom that she cannot be
> divorced against her will does not apply here).
> 
> It is also interesting to note that the Rambam in 24:16 is explicitly
> talking about a woman who is over on daas Yehudis *and* daas Moshe.  On the
> other hand, this Shulchan Aruch is brought at the end of the si'if on daas
> Yehudis, and it is not at all clear to me that he is necessarily applying it
> to the daas Moshe situation.
> 
> And, in many ways it is hard to see (leaving aside the hair covering case)
> how a man who wants to be shomrei mitzvos can remain married to such a
> woman.

But I thought we were discussing precisely the case of hair covering,
which isn't like the other examples.  Her going out with uncovered hair
seems to me more like her eating treif, rather than feeding him treif;
and we don't find that listed among the Das Moshe issues that justify
divorce.

If she had actually been machshil him once then the only way I can see
that he might not have to divorce her is if he's personally convinced
that she won't do it again.  If it were a strict requirement that he
divorce her, then we would not allow him to rely on his own judgment;
the point here seems to be that he is entitled to judge the situation
as he sees it, and stay with her if he thinks he can do so without
transgressing any more issurim.


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

On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:01:29PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: But I thought we were discussing precisely the case of hair covering,
: which isn't like the other examples.  Her going out with uncovered hair
: seems to me more like her eating treif, rather than feeding him treif;
: and we don't find that listed among the Das Moshe issues that justify
: divorce.

And in any case, this all started because the shocheit's job was saved
on the grounds that it was she who wasn't covering her hair, not that
the shocheit himself was violating halachic norm.

Which means that the whole question of whether it's grounds for a get --
while important in its own right as a discussion of hilkhos gittin -- is
tangential to the original issue. The Maharshag could have been basing
his pesaq on the idea that it would be atypical in their circles for a
husband to do so. We're talking about how halakhah is normally observed;
not what rights or duties the person technically has.

I still am looking for sources with details for the two anecdotes
I cited. That might help me understand RtCL unanswered question why
galoshes-wearing shochetim are a problem (in a mileau where that's
violating the uniform), which isn't an issue of violating how halakhah
is observed (veering lequlah from local pesaq or actually not conforming
to the din altogether in a way that is uncommon), as far as I could tell.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
micha@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rabbi Israel Salanter

-----Original Message-----
From: SBA [mailto:sba@sba2.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2008 12:13 AM
To: 'Avodah@lists.aishdas.org'
Cc: 'dov_kay@hotmail.co.uk'
Subject: [Avodah] Skipping Korbanos

From: Dov Kay <>
RSBA wrote: <<Which reminds me something I once heard about a bit of a
tummel which tookplace in a BHMD in BP, when the "chassidish" BT skipped
Tachanun.A "yeshivish" mispallel got quite upset, but the BT replied 'and
what aboutyou "Litvaks"'? 'How come your regularly skip saying
"korbonos"'?Is this correct? And if so, what indeed, is the reason for
this?>>

Much of "korbanos" in modern siddurim was a later additions my mekubbalim,
eg pitum haketores. Straight minhag Ashkenaz just says parashas haTamid,
eizeihu mekoman and R. Yishmael (the minimal mikra, mishna and talmud
following immediately after birchos haTorah, which are recited after birchos
hashachar). So a Litvak or Yekke who restricts himself to these sections is
not skipping korbanos. However, I have been in Hungarian shuls where the
shatz is expected to say everything printed in the siddur, including the
akedah. I believe Sephardim to do the same.
That being said, RSBA will be aware that the Lakewood Kollel in Melbourne
officially skips all of the korbanos and goes to straight to R. Yishmael
after b'rochos. One of the avreichim there once told me that he had looked
far and wide for a source for this, but couldn't. I can only guess that they
reckoned that the avreichim don't need their mikra, misha, talmud dosage
then, because they will be learning all day in any event . However, given
that it goes against the words of the Shulchan Aruch, this is quite
surprising.
>>

Another question.

The reason (maybe there are others) for saying the various korbanos is, as
Chazal say on 'Zos Torah Ha'olo/Chatos/Asham' etc - "kol halomed
ba'olo(chatos/asham) - ke'ilu hikriv olo etc".

Thus, these days when we still don't have the BHMK and cannot bring
korbanos, we substitute them with these tefilos - 'uneshalmo parim
sifsoseinu'.

I suppose those of us who feel that they have no need to bring these
korbanos are patur from saying these parshiyos.

(We had a 'benon shel kedoshim' [some claimed that he was a 'ben benom shel
kedoshim'] here who rarely said tachnun. His reason? "Only those who have
sinned need to say it...")

SBA

From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" < >
R' SBA: Thirdly, (maybe the Lakewooders can answer this),how many davveners
of this mini version of Mincha immediately sit down to learn. And how many
simply go home to eat, nap or do shopping?
-
True, but they have to do that anyway, right? So this way, they get back to
second Seder faster. 
===

Even if that was really the case, is it right to do this on the cheshbon of
zeman tefila (lechud)? 

>> The other reason I've heard for Heicha Kedusha, BTW, is that it's better
to say only three Berachos out loud: It's more likely that the Kahal will be
Mechaven with the appropriate Amens for those than if the Chazan would
recite all nineteen Berachos. 
>>

Huh? Yeshiva and Kollelniks who Torosom umnoson can't be mechaven
Properly??? 
Now, had you said this about us 2nd rate 'baalei-battim', it could be an
excuse. But bnei Torah !?

And what about Shachris? Then they are able to mechaven??

> after Maariv I noticed that they didn't say "Veyiten Lecho".
> I queried this with RK, who explained that it isn't said in (Litvish)
> yeshivos for reasons of 'bitul Torah'. I asked him to show me a single
person in this room, who is now learning Torah?  Teiku.
===
I don't know, I have never seen V'yiten Lecha said in a Nusach Ashkenaz
Shul, whether or not Yeshivish. 
>>

Pardon?? AFAIK, ALLl nusach Ashkenaz shuls say VL before Aleinu.
Hungarian/Yekke and presumably Litvish. (REMT, can you comfirm?)

>>FWIW, I can never remember seeing it said in a Nusach Sefard Shul, either

Standard nusach Sfard doesn't say it in Shul, but later at home. It's in
EVERY siddur!! 

And believe it or not, saying VL is not some 'chumra', but a Halacha in SA
OC 295 in the Rema (also see Biur Halacha there which explains the 2
minhagim on when to say it.). See also KSA 96:2.

Interesting story. When the late TA rebbe visited Melbourne the first time
nearly 35 years ago, he davvened MS in our main Shul - which is nusach
Ashkenaz. He noticed that the tzibur there said 'Vayiten lecho' - unlike his
- nusach Sfard - minhag saying it later at home after havdala.

When he went back to EY, he introduced the saying of VL in his shul,
immediately following his havdala there - thus ensuring that it is indeed
said by all..

SBA

Recently, I've had some insights into Hilchos Muktzeh, and I'd like to share them, in case anyone would like to comment.

For a very long time, I've been very bothered by the status of pets as
being muktzeh. To me, it had always seemed that a pet is comparable to a
pebble which one designates to be a toy and is henceforth a legitimate kli
shem'lachto l'heter. For example, if one is missing a which marker from his
checker set or backgammon set, he can find a small rock of the appropriate
size, shape, and color, and decide that from now on, it will be a checker
or a backgammon piece; as long as he does this before Shabbos, the rock
will *not* be muktzeh.

Why is an animal different? Why doesn't the same thing happen when one
obtains an animal and designates it to be a plaything? Granted that it
looks like and animal and acts like an animal, but my checker looks and
acts like a rock, no? So why do so many poskim insist that the animal is
still muktzeh despite my designation of it as a toy?

(I do concede that some poskim do not hold pets to be muktzeh; for example
see Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, quoted in Shmiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa chap
27 footnote 96. But my question is addressed to the view of the stricter
poskim: WHY do they hold a pet to be different than a stone/checkerpiece.
For example, in Rabbi Yisroel Pinchos Bodner's "Halachos of Muktza", page
zayin in the back, note 24, Rav Moshe Feinstein says, "All animals are
muktzeh, even those which the children play with.")

Okay, let's set that question aside for a bit. We'll come back to it later.

My son Avi was recently in Eretz Yisrael, and asked me what he might bring
back for me. At first I couldn't think of anything, but then I realized --
what better souvenir could there be than a piece of Eretz Yisrael itself? I
figured a bag of dirt is not only messy, but also a bit morbid, reminding
us of certain burial minhagim.

So instead I asked him for a few small rocks such as he might find on the
street or in a field. Such rocks could be easily cleaned and brought back
to New Jersey, and now whenever I want, I can look at them, give them a
kiss, and remind myself of Eretz Yisrael. He brought me a few thin shards
to keep in my wallet, and also some larger chunks that I figured I'd keep
in my tallis bag.

But - would that be my weekday tallis bag, alongside my tefillin? Or maybe
in my Shabbos tallis bag as well? And suddenly I started wondering about
the muktzeh status of these stones. Being very much nogea b'davar, I wanted
to say that these are no longer ordinary examples of "eitzim v'avanim" -
the classic sticks and stones, muktzeh machmas gufo. Rather, they have now
become something different, they have become *souvenirs*, objects which
were prepared before Shabbos, designated for a specific purpose (handling,
kissing, admiring). Aren't they exactly like the stone which is now a
checker piece?

I started thinking about it, and certain ideas started to become clear to
me. When something becomes a souvenir, it does not really acquire a new
identity; it retains its old identity, but we make a bigger deal about it.
The stone is still a stone. In fact, its being a stone is a major part of
why it is so special to me. This is very different than the checker piece.
The checker piece is still the size of a stone, the color of a stone, and
the shape of a stone. But I no longer relate to its stone-ness. The
material it is made of is irrelevant. It just happens to be a stone, but if
some other object had been convenient when I needed a replacement checker
piece, then I would have used the other thing.

That's why the checker piece is no longer muktzeh: Because although it *is*
a stone, I no longer *relate* to it as a stone. But the stones my son
brought back from Yerushlayim *are* stones, and I will always relate to
them as stones, and so they remain muktzeh, no matter how much I might want
to insist that they are "souvenirs".

So too for pets. Yes, one can easily argue that a pet is a sort of toy. But
it never stops being an animal. Like my stones, it cannot get away from its
identity - being a living animal is precisely what makes the pet such an
enjoyable toy. In order for eitzim v'avanim to stop being muktzeh, one must
give it a *new* identity, and that has not happened for a pet, which must
remain muktzeh.

(And now I'm starting to wonder: If all the above makes sense, then
perhaps, just maybe, if making an animal into a pet *is* good enough for
RSZA, then maybe making a stone into a souvenir is also good enough for
him....)

All comments welcome!

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Save hundreds on getting a Web Design Degree. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/REAK6aAYuuhnRCQhuEbpnTX5fkim66Vel0Sys8POMcYLrxobE74PdY/




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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 120
***************************************

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..."