Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 125

Sun, 06 Apr 2008

• 1. levayah minhagim (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Is having a good time ossur (Micha Berger)
• 3. Tearing K'riah (Cantor Wolberg)
• 4. Re: rare pesach (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 5. Re: schechtworthy (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 6. Re: Mutzkeh: Sticks, Stones, and Pets (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 7. Asking directions while driving on Shabbos and dan l'chaf z'chus (Cantor Wolberg)
• 8. Re: Levayeh Minhagim (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: rare pesach (Simon Montagu)
• 10. Re: Skipping Korbanos (D&E-H Bannett)
• 11. Medicine for a Metzora (SBA)
• 12. Metzorah "The Big House" (Cantor Wolberg)

However, there was no keriyeh done. (We only realised this much later.)
I am wondering, did the rabbi simply forget or is this common with other
irreligious aveilim?

After the burial, the rabbi announced a 'shurah' - asking men to stand on
one side and women on the other.

I have never before seen a shurah made for a woman or by women.
Our minhag has been that (mostly) women do go out to the cemetery - but
remain in the forecourt until after the kevureh and the men have left that area.

My late father told me that 'in der heim' (Weitzen - and presumably other OB
kehilos) women did not attend the burial. I hear that this was also the
minhag in Germany. Presumably in keeping with the SA.

How is this followed in other O and MO communities?>>

In Israel the minhagim are decided by each chevra kadisha which leads
to a great variety of minhagim.
In all the burials involving irreligious people that i have attended
kriyah was done.

I have indeed seen a shurah of women.
I think Aryeh Frimer would be the expert on that

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 04:08:41PM +0100, Alan Rubin wrote to Areivim:
: Below is a quote from an article quoted in the recent discussion ...
: http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/CHS67features2.htm
...
:> You see that there are people who actually go to restaurants just to
:> have a good time, not because they are hungry and they have come from
:> out of town and need to eat -- just as a source of entertainment. And
:> the same thing is happening in the music field.

: Is this a point of view that anyone on this list identifies with?

I try to live by RSSkop's words in his haqdamah, which include:

> We should not use any act, movement, or get benefit or enjoyment that
> doesn't have in it some element of helping another. And as understood,
> all holiness is being set apart for an honorable purpose -- which is
> that a person straightens his path and strives constantly to make his
> lifestyle dedicated to the community. Then, anything he does even for
> himself, for the health of his body and soul he also associates to
> the mitzvah of being holy, for through this he can also do good for
> the masses. Through the good he does for himself he can do good for
> the many who rely on him. But if he derives benefit from some kind of
> permissible thing that isn't needed for the health of his body and soul,
> that benefit is in opposition to holiness. For in this he is benefiting
> himself (for that moment as it seems to him), but no one else.

(Translation mine, from <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf>.
I included the Hebrew as three pages starting from the back. Warning,
though, it's a very pedantic translation, with an attempt to preserve
as many of the diyuqei lashon I found in the original as possible.)

Enjoyment for the sake of being refreshed to return to one's task in
life is part of qadeish es atzmekha bemah shemurat lakh.

Restaurants for me pose a perishus issue, as I will eat more (and worse)
food than I should to the point of losing self-control. So they aren't
really ideal for my entertainment personally. But for most people,
what's wrong with an enjoyable meal?


Music for the sake of music is more problematic. Not in and of itself;
you're "speaking" with a fan of Baroque and Rhennaisance music, as well
as some of New Age (if it isn't too muzak-y) and lately (I guess I'm
getting older) some forms of Klezmer and Jazz.

But contemporary Jewish music, if it has lyrics, has religious themes. It
bothers me to hear someone present such ideas in a manner that strikes me
as though he is entertaining the audience. Maybe it was naivite/youth on
my part, maybe it was the decades in which I grew up, but back then most
of the famous singers were the same people who did kumzitzin. Even stage
performances seemed like they were trying for a religious experience,
not simple entertainment. How can you speak of a dream that one day
"again will be heard in the streets of Y-m the sounds of a groom and
bride" and not say it like you mean it?

Have a great Shabbos
-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

"However, there was no keriyeh done. (We only realised this much later.)
I am wondering, did the rabbi simply forget or is this common with  
other irreligious aveilim?"

It is very likely that the aveil only wanted to tear a ribbon (which  
is a common C practice)
The rav would most likely not allow that and therefore opted not to.
The other possibility is that the keriah could have been done prior to  
when you came.
ri

R' Saul Newman asked:
> it there are 3  different simanim out of 14 possible year
> combinations  that  sunday pesach can fall on [ 1 meubar, 2
> pshutim], why  is the frequency so rare?  what dchiah causes
> these combinations to be rare?

R' Simon Montagu answered:
> All other things being equal, you would expect Pesah to be
> on any day of the week one year in 7, and it's on Sunday
> about 1 year in 9 on average, so it's not really so rare,
> it just seems that way because other days are more common.

Perfect answer, except for the "1 in 9" part, which will vary wildly
depending on which years one is looking at. Looking at the years 2001-09,
the ratio is 1 in 3; for 2010-24 it is only 1 in 15; for 2001-49 it is the
expected 1 in 7.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Illuminate every part of your home with great lighting. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3nH7wQpp33jXoI21gVmDqjBXihBNpcpRMAlu2pMQCy4zv4OO/

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 23:02:34 +0100
"Chana Luntz" <Chana@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> 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 Hafla'ah asks a variant of this question [0]:

<Quote>

It is apparently difficult, if she 'serves' him when she is a Niddah,
so that she is suspect on Niddah, if so he is forbidden to live with
her, and since she caused the prohibition, it is appropriate that she
should lose her Kesubah even without a warning ...

It seems that it is because she can say that she will accept
repentance ...

Perhaps she can argue that even if she is suspect he can live with her
through 'pikahos' who will check her 'be'es vestah' or every thirty
days, as in YD 196:8 regarding a deaf-mute.

</Quote>

He's not actually asking on the law of 'ein kofin', presumably since he
can accept that it can be understood to refer to all the cases
except Niddah.  Note, though, that the Pis'hei Teshuvah does actually
cite the Hafla'ah (via the Bris Avraham) on the words of the SA "[ve'im
razah] l'kayem osah" [1].  The PT also cites his discussion of this
issue in YD [2], where he cites the Havas Da'as there [3].

Full disclosure: I just recently learned EH 115, and RnCL's question
actually appeared on an exam I took on it.

> 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).

This is not universally accepted; Radvaz [4] cites a responsum of the
Rambam ruling that she does indeed forfeit the Kesubah regardless of the
husbands complicity.  On the other hand, in a different responsum [5]
the Rambam rules that we do penalize the husband the value of the
Kesubah for his complicity, but he still maintains that we do not give
the money to the 'zonah ha'marsha'as'.  He does not specify what is
done with it, but the Radvaz concludes by citing a responsum of the
Rambam stating that we penalize the husband and give the "me'uhar" to
paupers, which he endorses.

The 'Meforshei Yad Hahazakah' edition of the Rambam [6] cites several
responsa of the Rambam on this issue; none are sourced.  Two seem to be
mere quotations of the previously cited responsum of Radvaz, and a third
seems to imply that she actually is entitled to her Kesubah in the
event of the husband's complicity, although the language is problematic.

It is nevertheless true that many Aharonim [7] seem to take for granted
that the husband's complicity nullifies his right to deny her the
Kesubah, as RnCL has said.

[0] Kuntrus Aharon, 115:10
[1] 115:12
[2] 185:2
[3] ibid. 1
[4] 1:90, cited by Pis'hei Teshuvah 115:3 (at the end)
[5] Pe'er Hador 119
[6] Ishus, 24:10-11
[7] Panim Me'iros, Beis Meir, Mahari Ha'Levi (Taz's brother) and
Noda Be'Yehudah, as cited by Pis'hei Teshuvah 115:3

> Regards
> 
> Chana

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

I wrote:
> 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.

R' Sholom Simon commented:
> Well . . . except for the myriad of things which are
> considered automatically prepared, no?  S'forim (and, for
> that matter, just about anything one can read), food, keilim
> with which to eat food (plates, forks, napkins), chairs,
> clothes, games, toys, pillows and blankets, . . . . so much,
> in fact, that it almost renders your sentence useless.  If
> you want to say, however that "natural objects" fall in a
> different category, that may be useful.

Yes, indeed, being "automatically prepared" does count as "preparation" in this context.

In fact, while most people would think of the items listed by RSS here as
being non-muktzeh, this is not accurate. Most of them belong to a rarely
mentioned (but very real) category of muktzeh called "keli shemelachto
l'heter". The halachos of this category are that the item may be moved for
any purpose, but only if there is indeed a purpose; they may not be handled
without a purpose. (Food and seforim, however, may be handled even for no
purpose whatsoever.) - Mechaber 308:4, R' Bodner's "Halachos of Muktza" pp
18-19, and elsewhere.

So, as I see it, natural objects -- "eitzim v'avanim" -- are not a new
category, as much as they are they starting point from which they enter
another category. And I really mean that, both halachically and physically.
Everything, even fruit and meat, starts out as a raw material, useless for
anything, unprepared for Shabbos, and muktzeh. The apple begins unripe and
unpicked, the steak begins unslaughtered and uncooked, the coin begins
unmined and unshaped, the table begins uncut and unbuilt. Then these things
become prepared for use, and enter another category.

Akiva Miller

For those who commented (negatively) on my use of kaf z'chus please  
read the following.

When the Belzer Rebbe zt?l moved to Tel Aviv, he would assume
that whenever he saw a car being driven on Shabbos, it
was a woman on the way to the hospital to deliver a baby or
someone with  another medical emergency.

(He didn't even have to make believe it was a Gentile).

The Belzer Rebbe?s commitment to Shabbos was so engrained
in his very being, that he could not fathom its desecration.

ri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080405/c3b64d45/attachment-0001.htm 

SBA wrote:
> She only has a daughter [...]
> However, there was no keriyeh done. (We only realised this much later.) 
> I am wondering, did the rabbi simply forget or is this common with other
> irreligious aveilim?

She'elas Tam: how do you know there wasn't any k'ri`ah done?  Women only
tear an undergarment, and they do it privately, usually inside a car or
somewhere like that, so maybe you just didn't notice.  Or maybe it was
delayed until after the crowd left, for greater privacy.


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

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:35 PM, kennethgmiller@juno.com <
kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:

> R' Saul Newman asked:
> > it there are 3  different simanim out of 14 possible year
> > combinations  that  sunday pesach can fall on [ 1 meubar, 2
> > pshutim], why  is the frequency so rare?  what dchiah causes
> > these combinations to be rare?
>
> R' Simon Montagu answered:
> > All other things being equal, you would expect Pesah to be
> > on any day of the week one year in 7, and it's on Sunday
> > about 1 year in 9 on average, so it's not really so rare,
> > it just seems that way because other days are more common.
>
> Perfect answer, except for the "1 in 9" part, which will vary wildly
> depending on which years one is looking at. Looking at the years 2001-09,
> the ratio is 1 in 3; for 2010-24 it is only 1 in 15; for 2001-49 it is the
> expected 1 in 7.
>

Yes indeed, but I was taking the long view :) The fixed calendar recurs on a
cycle of 689472 years, and within this cycle Pesah is on Sunday in 75657
years.

I don't know if there's any simple answer to the question why the frequency
varies so much in the short term.

Hodesh Tov!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080405/a683b7e9/attachment.html 

Re:  <<Including the middle bracha?  The universal practise 
I've seen for
musaf in Sefardi and Temani minyanim is that after "hakel 
hakadosh"
the chazan goes silent, waits just before the end of the 
middle bracha
until the kahal finishes, and then continues aloud.>>

What I have seen many times is what I wrote.  The chazan 
continued out loud after kedusha without any silent interval 
and says the entire shomeneh esrei aloud. The kahal says it 
silently along with him. In the case of Dardaim, some just 
listen without moving their lips.  I suspect that that is 
their original custom and that the lip-moving sayers are 
influenced by meeting other edot in Israel.

David 

Anyone know if a Metzora is allowed to seek medical attention and/or take
medication for his symptoms?

Or would that come under "Hishomeir benega hatzoraas"?
------------------
After writing this I found an article on this subject by a Prof Shaul Regev
(no idea of his background) on the Bar Ilan U site which mentions this
subject and brings various shittos re tzoraas if it is a medical or
spiritual machla.
http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/metzorah/reg.html
Anyone know of other sources?


Another question. 
It seems clear that in those days, a person speaking Loshon Hara, Motzi Shem
Ra etc would end up becoming a Metzora. 

So which normal bar-daas wouldn't refrain from LH, knowing that he'll get
on-the-spot punishment? 

SBA

The Torah first speaks about tzaraas on the body and clothes, and how  
to purify oneself from tzaraat of body and clothes. Then the Torah  
talks about tzaraas on the house and how to be purified from it.

Why does the Torah separate its discussion of "body and clothes" from  
"house?" Obviously, tzaraas on a house is a different category than on  
"body and clothes."

Vayikra 14:34 tells us the difference: "...and I will place a tzaraas  
affliction upon a house in the land of your possession..." This  
teaches that tzaraas on a house can occur only in eretz Yisroel,  
whereas the other two forms can occur anywhere in the world. Also,  
tzaraas type afflictions on houses are clearly supernatural  
occurrences. (And we must never lose sight of the real Owner of the  
house).

Why the difference?

Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg, Dean of Ner Israel Talmudic College in  
Baltimore, explains: Clothing is mine and my body is mine  ?  no  
matter where I live. But my house is not mine  ?  except in the Land  
of Israel. For Jews, houses outside of Israel are not true "homes."  
They are for us to rent, sell and occupy until we find somewhere  
else.  Ultimately, we don't belong anywhere else but our land.

Another way I (rw) see it  ? the clothing and body is Olam Hazeh and  
the House is Olam Haba. If we purify our clothing and body in "Olam  
Hazeh", we'll ultimately make it to the Big House in "Olam Haba."

R Wolberg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080405/43873958/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 125
***************************************

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..."