Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 208

Tue, 03 Jun 2008

• 1. Re: Office Coffee machine (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: Safeiq Sefirah (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: Safeiq Sefirah (Joshua Meisner)
• 4. Safeiq Sefirah (SBA)
• 5. zayin tuvei ha'ir (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Mood of Tehillim (Silverman, Philip B)
• 7. Re: omer - Rihal (Micha Berger)
• 8. Kabbalat Shabbat poetry (Silverman, Philip B)
• 9. Re: safek s'firah (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 10. Re: Safeiq Sefirah (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 11. Re: Mood of Tehillim (kennethgmiller@juno.com)

The AhS (108) says the Rama is only writing about thick steam. (That
being the point of a lid.) This might be an issue with a microwave,
though, because the walls can get dripping wet. But I don't know of
anyone who still (now that their workings are better known) says
microwaves don't need kashering.

The coffee machine is okay.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

=========================================
2 thoughts
1. I seem to recall that many are choshesh for the steam even if not
thick in other situations (e.g. ovens)
2. You're assuming that the spigot never actually comes in contact with
the hot liquid chocolate.  I'd suggest that it is not unheard of for
actual splashing to occur while the mixture is happening.

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.

RMB wrote:
> So, Zack asked: We know from "mashiv haruach" the rule that if you
> haven't been saying something 30 days I should assume I didn't say it.
> To the extent that we override safeiq berakhos lehaqeil and require
> repeating.

In the case of mashiv harua'h, you are used to say it dofferently than 
necessary and need to change your habit. There is a preexisting 'hazaqah that 
you will just move on to mekhalkel 'hayim. However, regarding the sefirah, 
since it isn't necessarily part of ma'ariv, and isn't in the middle of a 
text, there is no reason to believe that you forgot on account of a habit to 
say the word 'aleinu immediately after the veimru amen of the end of qadish - 
they are two distinct, separate texts. If you did forget, it was on account 
of, well, simply having forgotten, sans 'hazaqah.

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

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> So why do we say there is a S"S, the second safeiq has a chazaqah -- day
> 1 to 30, assume it was missed, day 31 onward, assume it wasn't. And
> therefore if someone isn't sure if he counted on day 15, why doesn't he
> have to skip the berakhah?


I've never heard of this k'lal being invoked anywhere outside of the
amidah.  This being the case, perhaps the chazakah is not that a chazakah
shlilis that he did not say mashiv haru'ach, but rather a chazakah kiyyumis
that he said "... rav l'hoshia, mechalkeil chayim..."  By sefirah, where
there's no such concern of shigra d'lishna, there would hence be no opposing
chazakah kiyyumis.

Kol Tuv,

Joshua
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080602/9fa33d37/attachment-0001.htm>

From: Micha Berger 
..So, Zack asked: We know from "mashiv haruach" the rule that if you
haven't been saying something 30 days I should assume I didn't say it.
To the extent that we override safeiq berakhos lehaqeil and require
repeating.

So why do we say there is a S"S, the second safeiq has a chazaqah -- day
1 to 30, assume it was missed, day 31 onward, assume it wasn't. And
therefore if someone isn't sure if he counted on day 15, why doesn't he
have to skip the berakhah?

I might amend his question. It's not 30 days but 90 repetitions..
>>

I once heard a cheshbon (beshem someone) that it is actually 101
repetitions. I am not too sure how, but it would include Mussaf of YT,
several Shabosim, RCh etc.

SBA

 
Part of my topic for shavuot is zayin tuvei ha'ir.  The issue of who
picks them, how they are picked and what are their qualifications is of
interest.  The Rambam in sh"ut 271 suggests they must be talmidei
chachamim, anshei torah and maasim tovim.
 
Would the chevrah see any problem with me suggesting that this is
correlated with  (although I couldn't prove this is the reason) with the
Rambam's generally perceived "elitist" (is there a better word?)
approach or is ascribing such an approach to the Rambam
inappropriate?(e.g. it's not elitist it's amita shel torah)
 
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080602/7b962d03/attachment-0001.htm>

I've always noticed the very animated mood of the psalms of Kabbalat
Shabbat. I always hope the one leading the singing will choose a melody
that is similarly upbeat. But I have a question about the first psalm
(Psalm 95).  It starts of with a resounding "Come! Let us rejoice!" but
ends on "and I swore in My wrath that they shall not enter the land of
contentment." Frankly, if I were the one putting Kabbalat Shabbat
together, I'd be tempted to leave out the last few verses of that Psalm.
Of course, I'm sure I could find some good reasons to include it. Do you
know of any commentator who talks about this?

 

All the best,

 

Philip 

 



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of the original message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080602/edb304d8/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 04:56:11PM -0400, zviLampel@theJnet.com wrote:
: It would seem that the mysterious character behind this event is
: propounded by the Talmud Yerushalmi on Pesachim (6:1) itself: Said Rebbi
: Avoon, Isn't it impossible for two cycles of seven years to pass by
: without the 14th falling out on a Shabbos? Why was the halacha hidden
: from them?--To attribute greatness to Hillel!

: Evidently, Erev-Pesach did fall out on Shabbos several times in Hillel's
: near past, yet Hashem somehow caused the practice regarding the korbon
: to be forgotten.--Unless one is willing to accept that Rebbi Avoon was
: unaware of the historical reality suggested above.

I read R' Avun as objecting to the metzi'us. Can you believe it, "vehalo
i efshar lishnei shevi'is sheyachol 14 lihyos beShabbos"! And why did
HQBH hide our ability to keep the halakhah from us -- "velama nis'almah
halakhah mehein"? So that we would be compelled to elect a Nasi, an
alternative to the Tzeduqi Priest-King, and wrest back control --
"litein gedulah leHillel".

The distinction between your take and mine is whether we're speaking of
knowledge of the halakhah being nis'almah (as you assume) or the ability
to keep the halakhah was.

Similarly the line before R' Avun, "kesheim shenis'alma zu, nis'alma zu".
It makes the entire discussion about dinim that were unenforcable while
the Tzeduqim were in control of the BHMQ.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 43rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           good for all mankind?

I made an observation about Kabbalat Shabbat, and I was wondering if
anyone else had the same observation. In the six psalms we sing, the
ending has a word (a shoresh at least) that is repeated:

 

Psalm 95: ... to-ay l'vav haym, v'haym ...

Psalm 96: ... lifnay Hashem ki va, ki va... and ...lishpot haaretz,
yishpot...

Psalm 97: ... ulyishray layv simcha. Simchoo...

Psalm 98: ... ki va lishpot haaretz, yishpot...

Psalm 99: ... v'hishtachavoo l'har kadsho, ki kadosh...

Psalm 29: ... Hashem lamabool yashav, vayayshev Hashem...

 

Just wondering if I should just leave it as "that's nice," or if I
should make something more out of it.

 

All the best,

 

Philip 

 



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of the original message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080602/90fb3953/attachment.htm>

<So, Zack asked: We know from "mashiv haruach" the rule that if you
haven't been saying something 30 days I should assume I didn't say it.
To the extent that we override safeiq berakhos lehaqeil and require
repeating.>

     That's not the rule. What the rule states is that if something was
     said, we assume it was said in the manner to which we are accustomed. 
     Thus, after Sh'mini Atzeres we assume that the b'racha of Ata Gibor
     was said without Mashiv Haruach, and after the first day of Pesach we
     assume that the b'racha was said with those words.  It's a question of
     how we said, not whether we said.

EMT

_____________________________________________________________
Beauty School Programs - Get the career you've always wanted. Click Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.ju
no.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3oLm4V54D122ALHBLt4zfHNEo4jbRGgT49EMcOeq2Nzxj9kG/?c
ount=1234567890

R' Micha Berger's son Zack asked:
> We know from "mashiv haruach" the rule that if you haven't been
> saying something 30 days I should assume I didn't say it. To
> the extent that we override safeiq berakhos lehaqeil and require
> repeating. So why do we say there is a S"S, the second safeiq
> has a chazaqah -- day 1 to 30, assume it was missed, day 31
> onward, assume it wasn't. And therefore if someone isn't sure if
> he counted on day 15, why doesn't he have to skip the berakhah?

Excellent question, and I compliment your son on it!

I have seen in several places (but of course I cannot remember where any of
them are located) that although these rules about Sefiras HaOmer are often
referred to as "s'fek s'feka", that actually are not good examples of that
principle. In actuality, rov poskim hold that each day of sefira is a
separate mitzva, and is entitled to its own bracha even if one missed a
day. However, in deference to the opinion that the 49 countings are all
interdependent, we are machmir to skip the bracha IF one is SURE that he
missed a day.

Again, I don't know who gives the above svara, but it does answer your
son's question. And it answers other questions too. For example, I don't
recall ever seeing anyone describe the sort of sfeikos which can/can't be
used in combination.

Suppose I'm not sure whether or not I counted sefira on day 10. Since I'm
not sure, I'm allowed to continue counting with a bracha. Then I'm unsure
about whether or not I counted on day 20. This ought to be a sfek sfeka in
the other direction! "Even if I did say it on one day, I might have skipped
the other." Yet I *am* allowed to continue counting with a bracha.

Or take this case: Let's say that on day 10, I forgot to count until Bein
Hashmashos at the end of the day. No problem; I can count with a bracha
from day 11 onwards, because it is only a safek that maybe I missed day
ten. But then, suppose on day 20, for some reason I counted during bein
hashmashos at the *beginning* of the day; I was going to count again later,
but then I forgot to. Can I count from day 21 onward with a bracha? Yes I
can, even though day 10 and day 20 are contradictory against each other.
There's no way to count both of them; if one was on the correct day, then
the other was incorrect.

Perhaps there are poskim who say that one cannot combine contradictory
sfeikos, but if not, then I think the only explanation is that we really do
hold the 49 countings to be independent.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Get Visual Basic Software and Training. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.ju
no.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3mAsSuPB6oQSkjxLjLOSLarxApU0lV70KU1b8Va97TnUnM9s/?c
ount=1234567890

R' Saul Guberman wrote:
> To me, this is all situational dependent.  The tehillim of
> Hallel, Kabbalat Shabbat & before bentching are all upbeat
> tunes. The Mizmor L'David sung at Sueda Shilshit is not
> sung upbeat.

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> When we say Tehillim in an eis tzarah, we assume the point
> is to plea with the A-lmighty for help. It would seem that a
> number of the regular choices, though, are really more aimed at
> getting strength from knowing He is there for us. "Hashem
> Tzevakos imanu, misgav lanu..." And yet we still say them in a
> sad, rather than reassuring, tone.

It seems to me that these views are actually similar. And I think they
provide an answer to something which has been bugging me for a while.
Namely: On certain happy days, we omit Tehilim 6 (Tachanun) and Tehilim 20
(Lamnatzeach) from the davening. Apparently, these psalms are too sad to be
said on such days. Despite that, they are *not* omitted by someone who is
going through Tehilim and happens to reach them on such a day. Why not?

It seems to me that the power of Tehilim is unrelated to the meaning of the
words. Or mostly unrelated. Or something like that. It is appropriate to
say certain Tehilim in certain circumstances, and certain event/psalm
connections have become traditional, but we should not make too much of an
effort at understanding the words of the psalm, or their connection to the
event.

... I just went to review some thoughts I once wrote on this topic, and it seems that we've been through some of this before!

Click on http://tinyurl.com/5ap6rr
to go to the Avodah archives, where you'll find a thread titled "tehillim".
A lot of interesting ideas got thrown about there, such as R' Micha's
comparison of "tefillah vs tachanunim and tze'aqah vs ze'aqah." It seems
that some types of prayer require an understanding of the words, and other
types are less connected to the words themselves. Ayen sham.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Put an end to annoying pop ups! Click here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.ju
no.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3nCB2xwEwTt620E0LYF4dtRKToPGvWZ5YwtQA1K8QOH2DllY/?c
ount=1234567890




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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 208
***************************************

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..."