Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 123

Thu, 03 Apr 2008

• 1. Re: Skipping Korbanos (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Re: Tikkun Olam (JoshHoff@aol.com)
• 3. Re: Mutzkeh: Sticks, Stones, and Pets (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 4. Re: Skipping Korbanos (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 5. Subject: Haichah Kedusha (Danny Schoemann)
• 6. Re: schechtworthy (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 7. Skipping Korbanos (Danny Schoemann)
• 8. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Arie Folger)
• 9. Gentile weddings (Michael Makovi)
• 10. Re: What is a saris? (Mike Miller)
• 11. Re: schechtworthy (Michael Makovi)
• 12. Re: Chazzan pacing the tzibur/long tachanun (Michael Kopinsky)
• 13. Re: What is a saris? (Michael Makovi)
• 14. Re: Rav Hirsch and Kabbalah (Michael Makovi)
• 15. Re: WTG (Micha Berger)

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> 2- I recall my father saying besheim RYBS that heicher qedushah is only
> an option when there is so little time before sheqiah that the sha"tz
> couldn't possibly repeat shemoneh esrei before nightfall.
>

By any chance is your father named Rema?  <smile>



>
> Yes, this is the line at which most people say the first two berakhos
> with the shat"tz before the heicher qedushah. According to RYBS, that's
> the only way to do it; the notion of repeating the first two berakhos
> after qedushah simply isn't in his system.
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha-



I dunno why RYBS gets the credit on this one because SA/Rema say all should
be said together EXCEPT Rema says one guy should stay behind to say Amen...



-- 
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/20080403/d373a819/attachment.html 

 
In a message dated 4/2/2008 9:55:06 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org writes:

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".



At the risk of citing some people not usually cited in this forum,I  recently 
heard Rabbi Saul Berman mention the advice given to him by Rabbi A.J.  
Heschel when, as a young rabbi in Berkely, he asked for some guidance in  inspiring 
people. Heschel told him that we are a peopleo f fractured verses, and  he 
gave as examples all 3 cases mentioned in the above post. post-Aleinu, Shlach  es 
ami,and BILU. He said that in all three cases,the first half of the phrase is 
 not meaningful without the second. However, he said, the first half is also  
important,and,unfortunately,many Jews who work on the second half don't work 
on  the first half. The challenge of a rabbi is to give importance to both 
parts,and  not give the message of fractured verses.



**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.    
  (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv000
  30000000016)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080403/f3499e58/attachment.htm 

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> But *why* are stones and animals muktzeh?  Because they have
> no legitimate use.  These stones and animals do have a use,
> if you call playing with them a use (and if you don't then
> why aren't the checkers muktzeh too?).  So it shouldn't be
> enough to say "they remain stones and animals".

Nope. Stones have many legitimate uses, depending on size, shape, and such.
Orach Chayim 308:22 suggests a chair, barrel cover, doorstop, and
nutcracker, as legitimate uses of a stone.

To understand the reason why stones are muktzeh, one must remember the
principle on which muktzeh was based: Everything handled on Shabbos must be
prepared for Shabbos in advance. This includes, for example, any object
which was manufactured before Shabbos and is used for permissible
activities on Shabbos. It also includes natural objects which - prior to
Shabbos - were designated for a Shabbos purpose. It does *not* include
natural objects which were *not* prepared for Shabbos in advance: eitzim
v'avanim.

(Some sources for the above include the third comment of Torah Temimah on
Shemos 16:5, and Rabbi Yisroel Pinchos Bodner's "Halachos of Muktza", pages
10 and 77.)

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click here for great computer networking solutions!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/REAK6aAYu6pmKERMNkkRR7io6ctebJWnz0UlDZc295rR7B2KUvoOPA/

R' MB:
> No. But neither are they. They are bowing out of chazaras hasha"tz in
> a world where it takes a R' Chaim Brisker to explain why it's necessary
> despite the publication of the siddur. (Tzvei dinim: tefillah BEtzibur
> and tefillas HAtzibbur.)
> 
> Much lower-level involvement in Torah versus a much sligher chiyuv
> (takanah that outlived its purpose vs deOraisa). Same reasonining,
> different plane.
> 
> : Secondly don't Chazal say "Zman Torah lechud uzman tefilla lechud"?
<SNIP>
> Once you finish NhC cheileq 4, you learn that Talmud Torah keneged kulam,
> and that tefillah (mitzvos in generally, really) exists only to add to
> one's TT! Maaseh, in the physical plane, is lower than speech, and
> speech is lower than machashavah. And thus everything exists to elevate
> machashavah, IOW, to serve TT.

I just bumped into a germane Yaavetz (in the Siddur, Arvis Motza'ei
Shabbos): "The custom is to sweetly drag out the tune of V'hu Rachum - even
if it is definitely evening - so as to escort the Queen and to send her away
with joy and song. For the same reason, some start the singing with
Lamenatzei'ach B'nginos Mizmor Shir. In the Ashkenazic congregations they
also add L'dovid Boruch Hashem (Tehillim 144 - MYG), and the Sefardim add
the "Eightfold" (Tehillim 119 - MYG); each according to its custom. Anyone
who adds in the praises of Hashem Yisbarach is praised, but these are not
obligatory (which is why the Arizal didn't bother to recite them. He was
certainly busy with Torah, and did not want to neglect his learning)."

KT,
MYG 

Just a data point:

When I was in NIRC they always did a Haichah Kedusha at Mincha - even on
Erev Shabbos right before Kabolas Shabbos.

This was in 1986 when R' Ruderman zt"l was till RY.

- Danny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080403/afcbfdff/attachment.html 

R' ZS (I believe):
> > 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.
R'n CL:
> That might perhaps be the rationale of the Rambam - although it is a
> fascinating one - as it would seem to put the husband's assessment of the
> situation (and his level of negia is pretty high) over beis din's.  Why is
> his judgement to be trusted here but not in regard to whether television
> does or does not have an effect on him, for example?

Is it true that if an Eid Echad is proven to have lied once than he (or she)
is not ever believed again? IIRC, as far as the Ne'emanus of a Shochet is
concerned, there is a mechanism whereby a Shochet who lied can be
rehabilitated. I'm not sure that even would be necessary in the case of an
Eid Echad (Chazal were clearly Machmir in the case of a Shochet), but even
if it were, the man could reasonably wait - in the case of Daas Moshe - for
his wife to be believed again. 


KT,
MYG

R' Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
>> I have never seen V'yiten Lecha said in a Nusach
>> Ashkenaz Shul, whether or not Yeshivish.

R' Akiva Miller then commented:
> My experience has been that if an Ashkenaz shul says piyutim on Yom Tov and Arba Parshiyos,
> then it also says V'yiten L'cha on Motzaei Shabbos.
> But if it does not say piyutim, then it does not say V'yiten.

Here in Yerusholayim many Ashkenaz [Yeshivish] places say V'yiten
L'cho but omit piyutim on Yom Tov and Arba Parshiyos.

- Danny

RMS wrote:
> The rambam is actuallly quite explicit
> - while he requires a priori investigation of gerim, once converted,
> even by a bet din that did not tell them about mitzvot, they are gerim -
> and if they sin, they are a yisrael rasha rather than not being a ger.

While you claim that this is the simple reading of the Rambam, that doesn't 
account for the Rambam statement of 'hosheshim lo 'ad sheyitbarer tzidquto. 
Rather, the Rambam seems to say that his status is in doubt.

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

Off-list from [Areivim] Conservative and Reform Weddings, a question
arose: what about gentile weddings? I asked a rabbi of mine, and he
answered that today's gentiles are not like those of yore, and so
there is no issue of going to Achashverosh's party and even though we
brought our own food...It is totally mutar, my rabbi said.

He said that perhaps I shouldn't want to have gentile friends at all
(and instead, why not stay in Eretz Yisrael and have Jewish friends?
What do I need gentile friends for?), and perhaps I should merely make
a token appearance at the wedding and not stay too long...

But in any case, he said that k'halacha, the prohibition is only on
the licentious gentile parties of yore, not the respectable and decent
weddings that are held by the kinds of gentiles we'd all know.

Mikha'el Makovi

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Richard Wolpoe
<rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hypothesis [not mine I sw this years ago]
> Achashveirosh never did anything arbitrarily - he cloaked it with a veil of
> legalism. Illlustrations:

R' Yitzchak Etshalom has many other examples of "dat" in
Achashveirosh's kingdon:

http://www.torah.org/advanced/mikra/5757/sh/dt.57.2.12.html

-- Mike Miller
Ramat Bet Shemesh

>  I pointed out that the Mishna in Kesubos would seem to imply that a man
>  ought to divorce his wife in such a case.
>
>  RMYG queried this, given that the Rambam holds that if a man wants to remain
>  married to a woman in the case of the Mishna, he does not have to divorce
>  her.
>
>  I brought that while the Rambam does indeed hold like this, the Shulchan
>  Aruch brings that it is a mitzvah to divorce her (and that the takana of
>  Rabbanu Gershom which normally prevents her being divorced against her will
>  does not apply).
>
>  R' Chana

I recall hearing that Rav Soloveitchik's wife did not cover her hair,
and someone asked him why he doesn't divorce her, and he replied,
"It's not worth it". So I guess he followed Rambam.

Mikha'el Makovi

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Richard Wolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
wrote:

>  On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:45 AM, M Cohen <mcohen@touchlogic.com> wrote:
>
> > I have had the same kasha.
> >
> > My conclusion was that since the leniences of tachanun are very much
> > affected by minhag
> > mordechai cohen
> >
> >
> Tur quqotes Rav Natronai [sp??] Gaon: "Tachanun is optional"
> Thus anyone has ample Halachici precedent to be meikel.
>
I would hardly call a daas Yachid of the Geonim cited by the tur ample
halachic precedent for leniency...  For something to even be a bar samcha it
has to be accepted l'halacha to at least some degree.

KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080403/14bba788/attachment.htm 

> With Vashti - he made her rebelliousness a cause celebre of anti-Feminist
> rage
> Witt Haman, he would not simply excute him as a personal matter, when he
> could  find him guilty of attempted rape of the queen.
> R' Rich Wolpoe

But regarding Vashti, I once saw it used as a proof of Achashverosh's
incredible foolishness - he asks for his advisors' advice on how to
deal with a rebellious wife in his own home, but when Haman asks for
permission to consign an entire people to death, he doesn't even ask
who the people is.

But is not executing Haman for attempted rape personal, and executing
him for attempted genocide a public matter? Rather, perhaps
Achashverosh simply issued the second decree, and pretended the first
decree never happened and that Haman never played a role -  this would
make sense, since the first decree was irrepealable davka because to
repeal would be to admit error. Similarly, if  Achashverosh executed
Haman on grounds of attempted genocide, it would be to admit that the
king had been mislead. Rather, Achashverosh would issue the second
decree and pretend the first had never happened, and that Haman had
never played a role in anything.

Mikha'el Makovi

From [Avodah] Tiqun Olam

> > Rather, Rav Hirsch, I would say, simply stripped the theosophy and
> > theurgy out of Kabbalah and read it like any midrash - true, he
> > accepted Kabbalah per se, but on his own terms.
> > Mikha'el Makovi

> FWIW Rema equated kabbalh and Philosophy [just differing terminology].
> I assume that his > version of kabbalah must have also eliminated
> or reduced Theurgy and Theosophy
> ...
> Quite possibly simlar to Rema
> Or perhaps Kabbalh is a form of proto psycholoyg built on spirtual  rather
> than Freudian terms but has no Theurgic consequence.
> R' Rich Wolpoe

> > What needs iyun, however, is,
> > according to this shita, how did Rav Hirsch view Arizal et. al.?
> > Mikha'el Makovi

> AISI - Yekkes simply rejected Lurianic Kabbalh EXCEPT perhaps for
> yechidei SEgulah as a > result of S. Zvi above.  All Zohar, ana
> bechoach etc. were removed  from the  liturgy
> OTHO Kallirian mysticism remained in the Geramn liturgy
> It is ALSO my thesis that the Shelah was NOT banned but widely influential in Ashkenaz
> despite SZ.   Yekkes  did  Tikkyn Leil Shevuos and several other  custosm intiatiated or
> promoted by the Shelah
> R' Rich Wolpoe

Ah ha! Yes! Masterplan by R' Carmell:

Page xvii:
KABBALA
We have followed Rav Hirsch in omitting references to kabbalistic
(mystical) interpretations. In fact, however, it will be found that
the symbolic explanations given of certain mitzvot often have their
counterpart in the Zohar and other mystical works. This too is not
surprising when it is remembered that Kabbala itself is essentially an
exploration of the internal world of the unconscious mind and
especially of the non-ego layers of the human psyche.

Page 349 (notes to page xvii):
WE HAVE FOLLOWED RAV HIRSCH IN OMITTING REFERENES TO
KABBALISTIC...INTERPRETATIONS...: See Dayan I. Grunfeld's Introduction
to Horeb, pp. cxx-cxxix.

...KABBALA ITSELF IS ESSENTIALLY AN EXPLORATION OF THE INTERNAL WORLDS
OF THE UNCONSCIOUS MIND...: That the "worlds" of Kabbala are internal
was well understood by Rav Hirsch. He defines Kabbala as "inner vision
and concept" rather than "external dream-worlds" that people mistake
it for. (See Nineteen Letters on Judaism, Letter 18.) See also Rabbi
E. E. Dessler, Strive for Truth! III p. 221, and S.D.S. [Rabbi Solomon
David Sassoon] The Sephardi Heritage, London 1963.

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


rather than as theosophy and theurgy. While I said that Rav Hirsch
took the Zohar as a midrash whose p'shat was not its intent (as per
Rabbi Danziger) and therefore he tried to extract a rational meaning
from its allegorically form, Rabbi Carmell would agree that in any
case, Rav Hirsch did not subscribe to a conventional understanding of
Kabbalah. This is in contrast to Dayan Grunfeld, who says that Rav
Hirsch followed a 100% ordinary understanding of Kabbalah; he objected
only to the misunderstandings of the laity, and he didn't write about
Kabbalah simply because his audience was not receptive.

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



the meaning of "worlds"

The four worlds of Kabbalah (in ascending order:'Asiya Yetsira,
Beriya, Atsilut) are neither palces nor universes; they are states of
consciousness. Why are they called "worlds"? What is the meaning
"spiritual worlds"?

We have mentioned earlier that our awareness of our self, our ego, is
direct and immediate. It depends neither on the meditation of the
senses nor on that of the intellect (See Volume I, pp. 227-233). We
may call this "absolute" knowledge.

...

What one sees as absolute constitutes one's "world." The person who
sees sense-experience as absolute lives in the world of 'Asiya. One
who sees moral and spiritual awareness as absolute lives in a higher
world - the world of Yetsira. Adam in Gan 'Eden and Israel at Mount
Sinai lived in that world. For them, reality was the life of of the
spirit.

So writes Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhyn, commenting on the verse "And all
the people saw the thundrous sounds..." ...

On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 04:03:08PM -0600, Stadlan, Noam wrote:
: 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...

Halakhah is not to be understood in light of historical context to the
exclusion of the stated halachic process the poseiq tells you he
employed. Here it's not quite halakhah, but pragmatic none-the-less, so
I think the same guideline is worth following.

RGS lists 9 issues identified the R's Frimer article, of which only
one was a presumption of motivation. The others were more about the
discontiniuty of norm, the choice of WTG over an actual minyan, and the
authenticity of practice. He distrusted rapid invention in and of itself,
and various reasons why were far more plentiful than anything specific
to this particular innovation.

Again, see <http://tinyurl.com/2k4dcc> and the included link to the
article in Tradition.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
micha@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 123
***************************************

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..."