Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 201

Thu, 29 May 2008

• 1. Re: kofoi tova (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Re: ta'am of eating matza (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: Rosh Hashanah 32b There's Hope For Everyone (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Re: pesach sheni [from Hakhel] (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. Re: Shemuah vs. Kabbalah (Richard Wolpoe)
• 6. Re: ktanai (Michael Makovi)
• 7. Re: Rosh Hashanah 32b There's Hope For Everyone (Michael Makovi)
• 8. kevod habriyos (JoshHoff@aol.com)
• 9. Standing for mitzvot (cherrybim@optonline.net)

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:16:20PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> : Interesting. I overheard 2 rabbis from a local Yeshiva high school who
> were
> : registering a phone in the dorm as a home phone even though it was an
> : institutional phone and I questioned the eh tics of this.
> : I asked my own LOR...
> : He said NO it is not G'nievas Da'as it is MAMASH G'neiva.  It's like an a
> : adult buying a child's discounted ticket by lying about one's age.
>
> Except that few telephones are per minute anymore. At least on home
> contracts, all local calls are included.
>
> So, perhaps the mechanchim weren't being so evil.
>
> Instead, it's a zeh neheneh vezeh lo chaseir where the nachri (the phone
> company) is the lo chaseir.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger
>

it wasn't a matter of minutes. It was "business" or "Institutional" rate
versus "personal" rate.   The ethics of the phone company were not in
question. The phone company charges a certain "commerical" rate and the
yeshiva registered this as a private residence, which it was not. I think
when I discussed this with my LOR he, too, was aware of ways to be melameid
zechus
Somtimes the "frum" community is simply in a state of denial and is not
willing to be modeh al ho'emese.  Rav Schwab Z"L:gave talks about this. Was
he the only one percptive enought to see this? And now that he is gone, does
tht mean honesty is gone from us, too?  Will we ALWAYS be able to give
excuses instead of playing straight?



-- 
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080528/aad0df37/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:

> RRW wrote:
> > I could be wrong but menachos that were 'rekikim" seem to me to be wafer
> > like and NOT flexible at all. That does not mean there was no suc hthing
> as
> > bendable matzo [iow unleavened pita] but I am not convinced that this was
> > EVER the exclusive matza formula...
>
> Pardon me, but IIUC, there were four basic type of mena'hot, plus some
> special
> cases like min'hot 'havitin, min'hat sotah and le'hem hapanim. They were
> not
> all prepared the same way. While some were reqiqin, not all were.
>
> Thus, nothing indicates that a simple min'hat solet would be hard baked. In
> fact, neither need a min'hat mar'heshet be hard, it was possibly rather a
> kind of unleavened dumpling. Min'hah 'al ma'hvat could conceivably have
> been
> a soft pan cake. The hard one was min'hat pitim, and the fact that it is a
> category unto itself indicates that perhaps it was the only hard baked
> min'hah. (but this is debatable, as the point of pitim is the double baking
> process, not it becoming hard.)
>
> Furthermore, as the mena'hot contained oil, they were fundamentally
> different
> from le'hem 'oni, which we were discussing originally. Parenthetically
> [or, "(parenthetically? ;-))"], I can't recall whether the le'hem hapanim
> was
> made with or without oil. Parshat Emor mentions only flour, no oil.
>
> KT,
> --
> Arie Folger
> http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com
>

I am willing to concede that of the above is [probably] correct. But it is
esentiall irrlevant to my point

The Rambam refers to taking a Rekik [see hilchos Hametz uMatzah]
Q:is THAT particular kind of mincha or matzah hard or flexiible? That is my
only salient point.
If hard, then Rambam saw matzos as hard,
OTOH if Rekik ecnompasses  flexible Laffa-like matzos,  then my raya is
flawed.



-- 
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080528/3cd22044/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:03 PM, <T613K@aol.com> wrote:

>  RRW wrote:
> >>Of course Talmdiei Chachamim are different, but attributing to them
> infallibility is a sure way to EVENTUALLY cause them much criticism.<<
>
> >>>>
> No one attributes infallibility to talmidei chachamim.  "Papal"
> infallibility is not a Jewish doctrine.  However, there is an assumption
> that talmidei chachamim have a better batting average than unlearned people.
>
> *--Toby Katz
> =============
> *
>

Somewher in the Avodaharchives [about 10 years ago] I sued the same analogy,
that "gedolim" are such because their batting average is higher. And gues
what? My position was attacked!   There IS a movment out there to make or to
evolve a da'as torah model as  tantamount to infallibility.

I questioned the Taz on davening late on Shavuos, and aChredii relative of
mine started the usual frum argumetns of "who are YOU" to question the Taz?"
Besides the fact that Yekkees do not follow this Taz at all t Magen Avraham
disagress on the same point.

I turned around to my chareidi relative and said: "ahve you ever learned
Yoreh dei'ah?'
He said "no".  I then told him that it is conceiveable that the Gap between
HIS learning and mine is greater than between MY learning and the Taz's and
so who was HE to question my position?

Asdie from the merits merits of the points, I have never been "ranked out"
for disagreeing with an Acharon before this latest era.  We were taught in
Yeshiva to not argue on Rishonim [generally], but Acharonim were fair game.
  But this is espeically so when you can marshal rayas to back yourself up.

What is really sad is that my arugin with the taz was seen as disrespecting
the Taz. When we argued with rebbes in yeshiva it was not considered
disrespect, it was not personal.  Reish Lakish pikced uon Rabbi Yochanan a
lot. THIS  has changed. All of a sudden arguing with a Talmid Chacham is
somehow "dangerous."   Maybe at some yeshivos they were ALWAYS like this but
my background at Ner Israel and YU was not like this. We felt free to
question,shlug up nd siagree as long as we were within the bounds of
decency. And we got heated.

I recall [and I've posted this before!] arguin with R. Yosef  Weiss on a
point. He asked a question I gave a teirutz. He said "too balebatish" I
looked at the "boys in the back" [either Pri Megadim or maye Pri Chadhah]
who said the same thing. I raised my hand, quoted it to him and he said
"It's STILL too balebatish!" Good for him that he was consistent and stuck
to his guns.

I don't beleive the fact that I argued doggedly that day was ever held
against me. [my penmanship was a different story! --smile--]  Nowadays.... I
wonder if people still challenge their rebbes? ... .



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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080528/931dc627/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:

> RGD wrote:
> > I, on the other hand, would like to know what source, if any, there is
> for
> > eating matza on Pesach Sheni.
>
> ... and I wonder why they choose the 14th by day, rather than the eve of
> the
> 15th. (IIRC, this was raised in the forum in the past and not yet answered)
>
> --
> Arie Folger
>  <http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com>


I always assumed the minhag WAS to eat the matzah on the evening FOLLOWING
the 14th of Iyyar
-- 
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080528/87455785/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 1:13 PM, <Galsaba@aol.com> wrote:

>  Is it not clear to me what the diffefence is.
> Harambam mentions sometimes "Mippi Hashmuah" and sometinmes "Mippi
> Ha'Kabbalah".
> Are those the same? or, one is Torah Lemoshe Misinai, ie, was given
> verbally to Moshe, and he deleivered to Yehushua, etc, and the other one is
> more Maskana (conclusion) , Kal VaChomer, etc.
>
> Thanks,
>
> galsaba
>
>
>
Rambam's specific usages:

   1. Mipi hasmu'ah: an interpretation of a  TEXT from Sinai
   e.g.  bayom harishon tashbisu means the 14th of Nissan and NOT the 15th
   although the Rambam uses logic also based upon lo sizbach....
   2. HLMM  an oral tradition NOT rooted in any specific text
   e.g Tefillin must be black
   3. Mippi Hakkbalah  - I'm not sure!?.  kabbalah can at times refers to
   tradition from Nevi'im but I am not sure how Rambam uses this.

-- 
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080529/dd3f3edb/attachment-0001.htm>

> Does anyone have a good explanation why the gemara will quote a machloket in
> the name of amoraim and then immediately say ktannai and quote the same
> machloket word for word in the name of tannaim (e.g melech issue -
> sanhedrin20b)
> KT
> Joel Rich

If I remember correctly, Rabbi Steinsaltz says (Essential Talmud) that
it is better for a machloket to go back a far time, than for it to be
recent. If it is recent, it means there was a sudden downturn and loss
of mesorah; if the machloket is old, then it means we're no worse off
than our ancestors were.

Perhaps then the Gemara wants to show that we have the better position.

Also, perhaps it simply bolsters the Amoraim; rather than thinking
they are relying on their own sevara/de'ah, we see that actually, they
are relying on the superior sevara/de'ah of the Tannaim.

Mikha'el Makovi

> What is really sad is that my arugin with the taz was seen as disrespecting
> the Taz. When we argued with rebbes in yeshiva it was not considered
> disrespect, it was not personal.  Reish Lakish pikced uon Rabbi Yochanan a
> lot. THIS  has changed. All of a sudden arguing with a Talmid Chacham is
> somehow "dangerous."   Maybe at some yeshivos they were ALWAYS like this but
> my background at Ner Israel and YU was not like this. We felt free to
> question,shlug up nd siagree as long as we were within the bounds of
> decency. And we got heated.
>
> Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
> RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Heck, I remember when **I** was arguing against a Rashi regarding
grera d'grera in Shabbat perek shevi'i (I've been studying Gemara for
about one-and-a-half years of my life now, so for me to argue against
Rashi...yeah):

We had a case of doing two melachot (A and B), first b'helem achat of
not knowing the day was Shabbat, and then doing the same two melachot
in two different helems of not knowing the melachot themselves.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                     |
| A and B, both shogeg b'shabbat in ONE helem |
|                                                                     |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|                                |                                     |
| A b'melacha             | B' melacha                    |
|                                |                                     |
---------------------------------|-------------------------------------|

The Gemara says that if you bring a chatat on A in the second helem
(b'melacha), it also covers the A in the first helem (b'shabbat), and
the B in the same first helem (b'shabbat), and then the B in the
second helem (b'melacha). So one chatat covers three helems.

The reason is because of gerira and gerira d'grira. The question is,
what is grerira-ing what?

If I remember correctly:

Rashi says that A b'shabbat and A b'melacha are one unit as far as
chatat is concerned, without grerira; this then greriras B b'shabbat,
which then greriras B b'melacha.

But I disagreed with Rashi. I insisted that A b'melacha greriras A
b'shabbat - I said grerira is necessary because they're two different
helems even if they happen to be the same melacha; I said grerira
ought to draw one melacha after the same melacha in a different helem
Then A and B b'shabbat are one helem and therefore one unit that
doesn't need grerira, and then this greriras B b'melacha.

There really isn't a nafka mina, except for an incredibly complex case
that is too absurd even for Gemara (but not too absurd for me to
contrive it anyway!), but still, I disagreed with Rashi.

My rabbi wasn't perturbed at all. He just said, "Hold up, hold up,
Tosafot says what you say! Let's just first work on understanding
Rashi!"

Mikha'el Makovi

 
In a message dated 5/28/2008 10:38:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org writes:

>>  But I don't know about facial tissues. Is the need for one also
considered  a sufficient kavod haberi'os issue? <<



There is a teshuvah of the Chasam Sofer in which he says that caring for a  
runny nose is considered kevod habriyos in terms of carrying a handkerchief on  
Shabbos kilachar yad..



**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with 
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.      
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&;?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080529/7b676428/attachment.htm>

Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 21:20:27 -0400
From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@sibson.com>
Subject: [Avodah] Standing for mitzvot

Re: Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 194

MUST ONE STAND DURING THE RECITAL OF BIRKOT HA-TORAH?
The Avudraham (in his siddur, weekday Shacharit) writes that there are six
mitzvot which must be performed while standing, and their initials spell
"alotz shalem": [the cutting of the] omer, [kiddush] levana, tzitzit,
shofar, lulav, and mila."

There is another 
mitzva which must be performed while standing --"Before the aged you shall rise..."-- Allan Federman
 
> Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 13:45:36 -0700
> From: "Simon Montagu" 
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Standing for mitzvot
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:43 AM, wrote:

> > There is another mitzva which must be performed while standing 
> --"Before the aged you shall rise..."

> I would have said that it must be performed when sitting. If you are
> already standing, how do you perform the mitzva of rising?
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 23:56:47 +0200
> From: Lipman 
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Standing for mitzvot

> cherrybim@optonline.net wrote:
> > There is another mitzva which must be performed while standing --"Before the aged you shall rise..."

> No, this is one of the few mitzves that can't be performed while  standing.
 
While the mitzvos of omer, kiddush levana, tzitzit, shofar, lulav, and mila
should be performed while standing, however if, b?dieved, one did not
stand, the mitzvah is still fulfilled.	However, ?Bifnei Saiva Takum?, can
only be accomplished via standing.  The mitzvah of course begins with the
action of standing up from a seated position and continues (as you stand)
until the aged person finds his location.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080529/06846af5/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 201
***************************************

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..."