Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 212

Wed, 04 Jun 2008

• 1. Re: Any problem with reporting as part of a shiur summary (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Fish and milk (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: [Areivim] 40 Years Ago (Simon Montagu)
• 4. fish and milk (saulweinreb@Comcast.net)
• 5. Re: ktanai (Michael Kopinsky)
• 6. The 10 Dibros are split into 2 x 5 (Arie Folger)
• 7. Re: Safeiq Sefirah (SBA)
• 8. Avodah] D'rabanan vs. D'oraita (L Reich)
• 9. Re: [Areivim] 40 Years Ago (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: [Areivim] 40 Years Ago (Micha Berger)
• 11. From a current off-list discussion - Hair covering (SBA)

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:50:06PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Rich, Joel wrote:
>>> that the maggid shiur (a well respected talmid chacham) in discussing 
>>> whether there is an issue of hasagat gvul singing a song someone else 
>>> wrote and copyrighted, said he doesn't believe people would "write 
>>> songs that voices never shared" ? ...
 
>> Those who would think it insulting wouldn't recognise the phrase in the
>> first place, and so wouldn't learn anything "derogatory" from your
>> summary.

> How do you picture that conversation going lema'aseh? One makes the
> comment, they hear and don't understand it, and they simply ignore
> their confusion?

What confusion?  If I had read RJR's summary of the lecture, including
that phrase, I'd simply think it a pretty turn of phrase that the
maggid shiur used, or that RJR had added in his summary; perhaps they
came up with it themselves, or perhaps they'd read it somewhere.
I might even file it away for my own use.  But it wouldn't occur to me
that it was a famous quote, let alone that it was quoted from a source
that I considered tamei.  It was only RJR's question about the phrase
that led me to look it up.  (I'm so ignorant of this particular genre
that when RJR referred to S&G I briefly wondered whether it was a typo
for G&S...)


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

On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

> Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>
>    1. what in the context of the Darchei Moshe forces you to say his
>>      statement is NOT a reference to scribal or printer error?
>>
>
> The original din in the Tur is that fish that was cooked in milk is
> mutar, i.e. that the issur of basar bechalav does not apply to fish.
>
> The BY comments that the Tur here means there's no issur of basar
> bechalav, but not that it's actually permitted lemaaseh, because
> there's another unrelated issur: that of sakanah.  So in practise
> fish and milk is in fact forbidden, but for a completely different
> reason, and thus the Tur's point is valid.
>
> The DM comments "nitchalef lo basar bechalav".
>
> Now it is absolutely impossible that the BY originally wrote, or
> even meant to write, "fish and meat", because if so what's his point?
> The Tur is talking about fish and milk, not fish and meat.  The issur
> (mipnei sakana) on fish and meat doesn't in any way contradict the Tur.
> The BY must have written "milk", and meant "milk".  No later copyist
> introduced this error, if error it is, and nor did the BY's hand slip
> and write a different word than his brain was telling it to write.
> And the DM cannot mean that.  Rather, the DM means that the BY, when
> he wrote this, had actually confused meat and milk, and thought at
> that moment that the issur sakana was on fish and milk, rather than
> fish and meat.
>
>
>   2. There is no mention in any of the Rishonim AFAIK re: davening
>>  arbis late for Shavuos?nevertheless  the Taz mentions it. Why
>>  can't the BY be adding/manufacturing  a new halacah/humra/minhag?
>>
>
> Indeed, those who defend this BY say exactly that.  That the BY was
> referring to a different sakana, besides the one from mixing fish
> and meat.  The Pachad Yitzchak cites medical evidence that there is
> indeed such a sakana, and says this was what the BY had in mind.
>
> There's a slight difficulty with this, because the BY explicitly
> references the siman in OC where he mentions the sakana from mixing
> fish and meat.  In that siman there is no mention of milk.  That's
> why the DM says what he says.  But one could answer that the BY
> didn't mean that the issur is explicitly mentioned in that siman,
> but that a *similar* issur is mentioned there, and *just as* one
> may not mix fish with meat, as said in that siman, so *also* one
> may not mix it with milk.  In modern footnoting convention, one
> might say, the BY would have written "cf" or "re'eh" before the
> siman number, rather than "km"sh".
>
> One may also say that Occam's razor tends toward the DM's answer,
> to ascribe the BY to a mistake rather than invent a new sakana that
> we've never heard of elsewhere.
>
> In practise, most Sefardim seem to follow this BY, at least to some
> extent, while among Ashkenazim AFAIK only some Chasidim do so.  I
> speculate that the Chasidim copied this practise from Sefardim,
> along with many other practises.
>
>
> --
> Zev Sero
>

Yasher Ko'ach. I see your point and I stand corrected

I have generallyl considered this BY fishy because

   1. This pesak does NOT appear anywhere in the shulchan Aruch AFAIK.
   2. The Levush says what you say, that there is no Halachic problem just a
   sakanah problem. Yet this Levush attacked because they have witnessed no ill
   effects of fish and milk. Given hat some poskim attacked the Levush instead
   of the Beis Yosef directly has led me to believe that re: the BY it was not
   clear what he wrote, but the Levush WAS clear.  But according to what you
   are saying, the BY is equally clear.

FWIW this provides an irony since the Levush paskened almost exclusively for
Ashkenazim but some Sephardim follow this p'sak [albeit becuase of the BY]
while Ashkenazim do not follow this Levush [bay and large] and take the
Rema/DM for granted.


-- 
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/20080603/dc66d756/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

> She'elas tam: mimai that "magreifah" was a musical instrument?
> I had always assumed it was the tool used for terumas hadeshen, and
> the sound came from the Cohen dropping it on the mizbeach, or banging
> it against the mizbeach.

The description that sounds like a musical instrument is in Arachin
starting at the bottom of 10b. See the last Tosafot on 10b, d"h
magrefa, where he says that there were two magrefot, a tool and a
musical instrument.

 R' Zev Sero writes:

"In practise, most Sefardim seem to follow this BY, at least to some
extent, while among Ashkenazim AFAIK only some Chasidim do so.  I
speculate that the Chasidim copied this practise from Sefardim,
along with many other practises."

When I was learning in Kollel in EY, I had a chavrusa who was a sephardi. 
We were learning that siman in shulchan that deals with the BY's alleged
mistake re: fish and milk.  My wife called me to invite my chavrusa for
dinner that night, because she had to go out and we needed to learn at home
for night seder so we can be with our baby until she could get back.  He
had no problem with the arrangement, and gladly accepted our invitation. 
Needless to say, my wife made a tuna casserole that night and much to her
chagrine, our guest could not eat with us.  My wife thought at first that
this Israeli born sephardi had obviously never seen tuna casserole before,
and she tried to encourage him to try some.  He had to tell her that
sephardim won't eat fish and cheese together. We still think of my chavrusa
every time we have a tuna casserole for dinner.
  
On a more serious note, if we accept the DM that it is a mistake, obviously
we do not need to be machmir on fish and milk.	But even if we accept the
mefarshim who explain that it was a seperate sakana, why do we have to be
machmir if we now do not know of any sakana? The debate about meat and fish
is well known, that we are machmir even though current science doesn't
identify any health risks with meat and fish together, but that is because
it has become accepted as an issur in klal yisrael. it is hard to believe
that we could apply the same rules to fish and milk, which most people do
not accept as dangerous AND medical science has not identified any such
danger? 

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Rich, Joel <JRich@sibson.com> wrote:

>  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
>
I do not have a good explanation for the times when the exact same machlokes
is cited in the tannaim.

When the machloksim are not identical but rather (potentially) parallel, my
explanation is as follows: (I have not heard this anywhere, but kach nireh
li pashut.)  The main goal of the amoraim was to figure out how to pasken.
When they were presented with two opinions among amoraim, the easiest way to
pasken is to say it's parallel to a machlokes tannaim, where they already
knew klalei psak - Yachid v'rabbim halacha k'rabbim, halacha k'beis hillel,
the halacha is not like Rabbi Meir if someone else disagrees, etc. etc.  The
Gemara will often reject a leima k'tannai (well, actually, if it's a *leima*
k'tannai it will always reject it - otherwise it wouldn't have used the word
leima), saying that no, our dilemma here can not be simply reduced to a
previously known equation, and we must go through and debate each side on
its own merits.

KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080604/96edd5c5/attachment-0001.htm>

Rabausai,

It is well known that one way to analyze the 10 dibrot is that they consist of 
5 bein adam laMaqom and 5 bein adam le'havero. While I did find the division 
of the dibrot into 5+5 in massekhet Sheqalim daf khaf vav (IIRC) and in the 
Yalqut Shim'oni parsaht Terumah ?368, they do not mention the BAL'H vs. BALM 
distinction. The earliest source I found so far is the Ramban on lo tirtza'h 
in the dibrot of Parshat Yitro (passuq 13).

Does anyone know of an earlier source than the Ramban for this analysis?

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

From: Micha Berger 
SBA wrote:
: 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.

So perhaps it's related to "einah domeh shoneh pirqo 100 pe'amim leshoneh
pirqo 101" (Hillel to Bar Hei-Hei; Chagiga 9b).
>>

Correct. In fact that is how I heard it. (Possibly beshem the CS.)

sba

>On a complete Tangent,in teaching Shulchan Aruch, etc. I noticed this
>pattern re: penalties:


  > 1. D'oraissos - Both Meizid and Shoggeig  are always hayav
   >2. Derabbanan's
     > 1. Meizidim USUALLY have a penalty
      >2. Shoggeg Never [afaik so far] have a penalty post facto

>I am guessing that this is consistent with this Rambam
>If anyone can confirm this pattern as a stated rule somewhere [Yad 
>Malachi?]
>then I would appreciate it.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

                                             END of QUOTE


The Nesivos Hamishpot (Choshen Mishpot 234:3), using a text from Bavli 
Eruvin 47 as a source, states that a Shogeg Derabbonon does not require
teshuvah (repentance)

Elozor Reich, Manchester

-

Simon Montagu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> 
>> She'elas tam: mimai that "magreifah" was a musical instrument?
>> I had always assumed it was the tool used for terumas hadeshen, and
>> the sound came from the Cohen dropping it on the mizbeach, or banging
>> it against the mizbeach.
> 
> The description that sounds like a musical instrument is in Arachin
> starting at the bottom of 10b. See the last Tosafot on 10b, d"h
> magrefa, where he says that there were two magrefot, a tool and a
> musical instrument.

Thank you.  So which one produced the sound that was heard in Yericho?
And how does one learn Rashi, who seems to say there was only one
magreifah?  It was a tool *and* a musical instrument?  I can't imagine
scooping up ash with the sort of water organ you pointed to at Wikipedia,
or with anything that has holes and reeds stuck through them, and holes
in the reeds, as Rashi goes on to describe.  Is there something missing
from Rashi that resolves this?


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

On Wed, June 4, 2008 6:32 am, Zev Sero wrote:
: Thank you.  So which one produced the sound that was heard in Yericho?
: And how does one learn Rashi, who seems to say there was only one
: magreifah?  It was a tool *and* a musical instrument?  I can't imagine
: scooping up ash with the sort of water organ you pointed to at
: Wikipedia, or with anything that has holes and reeds stuck through
them,
: and holes in the reeds, as Rashi goes on to describe.  Is there
: something missing from Rashi that resolves this?

The Tosefta (Eirachin 1:13) explicitly says the hydraulis wasn't
pleasant sounding enough for Shabbos in the BhM. That rules out
identifying the magreifah with it.

Eirechin 10b-11a, the rishonim, and the Tif'eres Yisrael combine to
give quite a bit of detail. You'll see why I thought there was
similarity to a bagpipe. It has 10 tubes, a handle with holes in it
and can make 100 or 100 sounds, although R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq tells
us that's an exaggeration. It had reeds. The body of the instrument is
an amah by an amah. Maybe a cross between a bagpipe and an accordion
(which has a box pump instead of a bag, but no tubes behind the
reeds)? And were those 1000 sounds simultaneous, or it had a span of
1000 different possible sounds? Could it do chords?

The keli used for cleaning the mizbeiach was a shovel or a rake. The
Tosafos YT (on Tamid 33a), that the magreifah was a musical instrument
that is shovel or rake shaped.

Maybe Rashi similarly meant to say that the gemara is talking about a
magreifah (as shovel, not rake, he is maqpid) shaped musical
instrument disabusing you of the notion that it's a homonym that might
mean a musical instrument else-where.

There is a shitah (lost the mar'eh maqom) that the instrument "threw"
music like a shovel throws ashes, and that's how it got its name.

A musical instrument shaped like a rake? Again, sounds related to the
bagpipe. The fact that it could be heard "all the way to Yericho" fits
(as guzmah) the distance bagpipe music can travel. Although being an
ancestor of the bagpipe doesn't necessarily mean it had that "nasal"
bagpipe or oboe sound. The sax is also a reed instrument. I'm not
saying they're the same instrument, that the magreifah had drones
(tubes that always produce the same sound, droning on while the melody
is played). Just an ancestry. After all, Jewish traders got everywhere
else on the planet, why not Scotland?

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Upon request of R' Micha - transferred back here:
(Hopefully my cut and pasting makes some sense)


From: Gil Student [mailto:gil.student@gmail.com] 

Toby:
> And that it supposed to excuse or explain why a woman today with a 
> good enough Jewish education to be learning Gemara is OK with not 
> covering her hair?  It's supposed to make the MO tendency to be lax in
halacha somehow excusable or justifiable?

Yes, it is supposed to EXPLAIN why some women choose to act like their
mothers and the rebbetzins of their youth who did not cover their hair. To
many people, Judaism is a living religion that requires following in the
footsteps of the righteous people who preceded you rather than learned from
a book. That is why, for example, my father-in-law will make kiddush on a
shot glass of schnapps even though it is clearly against halachah. 

>>
SBA: Have you heard the saying that 'minhag' is osiyos 'gehenom'...?

I have often found that one can bring a rayah from the vochedigeh parsha
(and if I can't - it is because I haven't studied it properly).

Ayen Rashi this week 5:18 dh: Uporah: 
"Mikan l'Bnos Yisroel shegilui harosh genai lohem."

This is from the Sifri - which adds - d"a, "melamed al bnos yisroel
shemechasos roshehen." (This also is a gemara somewhere, IIRC)

And as we have debated 100 times before on Arvm, O Jewesses in
Greater-Hungary, Germany, Poland - especially the chassidishe - mostly DID
cover their hair. Lita was where this broke down after WW1.

?
________________________________________
From: Moshe Feldman [mailto:moshe.feldman@gmail.com] 
, Gil Student <gil.student@gmail.com> wrote:
> Toby:
>> And that it supposed to excuse or explain why a woman today with a good
enough Jewish education to be learning Gemara is OK with not covering her
hair? ?It's supposed to make the MO tendency to be lax in halacha somehow
excusable or justifiable?
>?
> Yes, it is supposed to EXPLAIN why some women choose to act like their
> mothers and the rebbetzins of their youth who did not cover their
> hair. To many people, Judaism is a living religion that requires
> following in the footsteps of the righteous people who preceded you
> rather than learned from a book. 
?
Not so long ago, Toby, I used to think as you do. ?However, now I realize
that Halacha is dynamic and there are many kulos which we barely notice that
have been adopted over the generations. ?Here are some:
?
Chodosh in Chu"l
Shok b'isha erva (many poskim believe this means the lower leg)
Using a heter iska to borrow money for personal (not business) purposes
Shaving with rotary shavers (even if not lift 'n cut) which leave the face
looking beardless
Unmarried women not covering their hair (see Rambam, S'A EH 21:2)
Wearing of a sheitel (violates Das Yehudis according to the Aruch)
?
At the time that a kula is adopted, there are extenuating circumstances, and
poskim look for a reason to be meikil if the the kula is weak. ?If enough
time passes, the kula becomes minhag yisrael and is hard to uproot. ?It is
just in the 20th century, with the death of mimeticism (as detailed in Dr.
Chaim Soloveitchik's article) that the process has changed.
?
In the case of women's hair covering: R. Michael Broyde has written about
the basis for a leniency which was adopted by the rav of Hartford, who (as
reported by R. Hershel Schachter) Rav Soloveitchik felt was a greater posek
than his own cousin Rav Moshe.??The concept that erva can depend upon
standards of modesty of the time is not radical.? After?all, "u'fara es rosh
ha'isha" does not explicitly state that it is assur to have uncovered hair,
just that women normally covered their hair.? And I understand that in the
ancient Near East, both married and unmarried women covered their hair when
in public.? I believe (but would appreciate more proof) that the distinction
between married and unmarried women covering their hair arose among *goyim*
in Europe.
?
In any case, the overwhelming majority of Klal Yisrael is meikil about the
same halacha with regard to unmarried women:

=================
?On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:20 PM, SBA <sba@sba2.com> wrote:
A link to a web birur on this:
 
http://www.daat.ac.il/encyclopedia/value.asp?id1=1590

================
RMF:  
Thanks, SBA, for this useful article.
 
Some points:
1. The question is whether deoraisa means that it's a chiyuv de'oraisa, or
that the makor of this type of tznius is found in the Torah and is not a
later minhag of B'nos Yisroel (see Rashi's Kesubos 72a definition of Das
Yehudis--????? ???? ????? ???"? ??? ?????).
 
2. Note also--
?????? ??????? ??? [???? ????: ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????; ??? ???: ??? ??????
??? ????; ???????: ?? ??????? capillitium, ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??????]
??? ?? ???? "???? ????". ??? ????? ????, ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?????
????. ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????
He should have added that Ellinson is quoting the Aruch, who was of course
an expert in Latin and lived close in time to the Gemara so he was more
likely to understand the meaning of words used by the Gemara.
 
This is the basis for ROY's view that wearing a wig violates Das Yehudis.
3. For those who didn't read the entire article, it supports what I argued
re unmarried women and states:
?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ??: ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ???, ??? ????? ??
???? ???? ??????, ????? ??????? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? - ???
????? ?????? ????? ? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??????. ???
??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????, ????? ???? ???? ???? ???
????. 

???? ???? ?? ?????? ?????, ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????, ?? ?????
?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ?????. 
Moreover, he cites ROY:
?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????? ???, ??? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ????
?????? ???? ????, ?? ????????, ?? ???? ????? ???? ???????, ??? ??? ?? ??
???????. ??? ?? ????"? ????"? ????"? ?????? [...] ??? ?????? ??? ?? ?????
????? ??????? ????"? ???? ???? ?????? ????"?, ?????? ??? ??? ????, ???? ???
??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?'
Kol tuv,
Moshe



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 212
***************************************

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..."