Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 383

Tue, 11 Nov 2008

• 1. maaseh avot siman lebanim (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Challah (Harry Weiss)
• 3. Re: a troubling halacha (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 4. Re: a troubling halacha (Michael Poppers)
• 5. Re: a troubling halacha (Ben Waxman)
• 6. troubling halacha (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: troubling halacha (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: Gentiles in the Torah (Micha Berger)
• 9. Shim'on veLevi achim... (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: a troubling halacha (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: troubling halacha (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: maaseh avot siman lebanim (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: troubling halacha (Zev Sero)

<<Cosmic:  C.  Consciously or  unconsciously,
Avraham's actions prophetically foreshadowed events that would  occur
later in Jewish
history. >>

This is a key point . When we say that "ma'asei avos siman labanim"
does that mean
that Avraham consciencly purchased maarat hamechpala because of its effect on
future generations (and similar for other events) or does it mean that
actions of
the avot done completely unconsciously have some effect on the future
(how does that
work) or possibly that G-d guided the avot into circumstances so that it would
affect the future.

Bottom line what does the Ramban's phrase ."ma'asei avos siman
labanim" really mean

-- 
Eli Turkel

> From: Tamar Weissman <tamarweiss...@yahoo.com>
> And now, hypothetically speaking, if I can't access the dough until
> the bread is baked and it's been made with under 4 lbs of flour
> (separate without a bracha), how do I take challah?

2 answers, one halachic one practical.

If you  cannot (or did not) take Challah in the dough status you can take 
it from the baked product.  That is also what you do when there is a 
Jewish baker that does not take Challah.  (Normally that would be a 
rarety that they would have hashgacha,  but there is one bakery in the SF 
Bay area that one is told to separate Challah)

If there was a big enough hypothetical bread machine, one could open the 
cover in the final rising stage and take out a piece for Challah.

>

Harry J. Weiss
hjwe...@panix.com

Both onlist and offlist, several people have written to point out that I
was mistaken in thinking that all (male) aveilim say kaddish, not just the
sons. (Though I did concede that the sons have priority, many communities
allow several people to say kaddish together, making priority a non-issue.
Also, I always understood that other aveilim would only say kaddish for
shloshim, not for the almost-year that the sons do.)

I am not sure where I got this mistaken idea from. But I have several possibilities which I'd like to mention.

Almost 31 years ago, when my father a"h was niftar, a great source of both
Torah learning and comfort was "The Jewish Way in Death and Mourning", by
Maurice Lamm. At the very bottom of page 169, he writes about kaddish:
"While the primary obligation is towards father and mother, it is also
said, according to the custom of some communities, for other close
relatives: brother, sister, son, daughter, and wife, for the 30-day
period." Unfortunately, he does not specify which communities have that
custom.

Given that I did have this understanding, I would have been surprised if I
was ever in a beis avel, and found the niftar's brother abstaining from
kaddish simply because the son was saying it. I would have noticed and
remembered such a thing. But I don't recall such ever happening. This
supports what someone wrote me offlist, that
> It does, however, seem to be a common error.  At burials,
> I have often had to inform brothers of the niftar, or the
> husband of a nifteres, that they should not say the k'vura
> kaddish, though in the case of the husband, I'm not
> insistent, for obvious emotional reasons.

"Kaddish Yasom", we can conclude, ought to be translated as "Orphan's
Kaddish". Anyone have any idea who was the first to call it "Mourner's
Kaddish"? How subtle... how insidious! I can't help but suspect that a
lifetime of knowing that phrase might have played a big role in my making
this error. (Interesting trivia: Total Google hits for "Orphan's Kaddish",
with and without the apostrophe: 681; total hits for "Mourner's Kaddish",
with and without the apostrophe: 17,470 -- 25 times as many!)

R' Yitzchok Levine wrote:
> Why should one say for a sister or a brother, if they leave
> behind sons who are over Bar Mitzvah who are saying kaddish
> for them? The halacha is, as I understand it, that only one
> person is supposed to say kaddish at a given time. (Today
> this has changed in many places in order to avoid fights
> over who gets to say which kaddish.) From here you see that
> only one person saying kaddish is what is to be done. Why
> have others say kaddish?

It seems to me that while your conclusions may be correct, your logic is in
error. What would you says about a case where there are two sons, but they
daven in different shuls and will not conflict with each other?

If it is sufficient that the niftar has one person saying kaddish, then one
son will suffice. Perhaps the older will say it, or perhaps they'll take
turns. But even if they are in different towns, why should one say kaddish,
if there are other sons who are over Bar Mitzvah who are saying kaddish for
them?

And if you hold that they both would say it, because more saying of kaddish
means more zechus for the niftar, then why are you surprised that someone
would want to say kaddish "for a sister or a brother, if they leave behind
sons who are over Bar Mitzvah who are saying kaddish for them?"

Rather it seems to me that the reason for kaddish to be said by all the
sons, and only the sons, is simply because that's the way the minhag was
originally done. Not because of any reason which has yet been mentioned in
this post.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Free info for small business owners.  Click here to find great products geared for your business.
http://thirdpartyoffers.ju
no.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3m7tDhQlyChnHvWuEMe3cxaAYcY5kihyY3N604dXSU0IbiHo/?c
ount=1234567890

In Avodah Digest V25#381, REMT related:
> Each gave a different answer: RYBS mentioned the kibbud av va'eim aspect,
RYH said that the passing of a parent means that we are one more generation
removed from the origin of our mesora, and my father said that one has only
one father and mother, while parents generally have more than one child. <
Could REMT (or someone else) expand on the difference(s) between the
respective answers of his father and of RYBS zichronam livrachah?  Thanks.

All the best from
-- Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081110/cf739229/attachment-0001.htm>

The language of the AhS and the Khocmat Adam is that there is no khiyuv to 
tell anyone, but that the custom is to tell sons so that they can say 
qaddish. If it is a question of minhag, then it seems that the minhag today 
is to tell everyone right away and not hide anything.

Ben
> See KSA 206 - 9, 10, 11 - http://www.kitzur.net/main.php?nk=1&;siman=206

>
> 11: The Minhag is to inform male sons about their parents demise so
> that they can say Kaddish.
> 

<< According to RYBS and others, the purpose of
aveilus is to give a constructive means of channeling the emotions of
mourning.
One might say that there is little machloqes. RYBS might hold that aveilus
is catharsis, and the kibud av va'eim is in not downplaying the loss.>>

According to this one should certainly tell an avel about his loss so that
he can experience this catharsis. That is why aveilim are so upset when
they are not told and cannot sit shiva with the family

<<Thought experiment - someone knows that a close relative is ill
and unlikely to make it past the next month. He goes to a remote island
and instructs that no one contact him.  He returns 3 months later and
gets the shmua rechoka that his relative had died 2 months prior.  He
mourns as a shmua rechoka.  Has he done anything wrong? anything not
preferred?>>

Her has done absolutely nothing wrong which is the basis of R. Zilberstein's
psak (and the KSA). The question is what if he is not on an island but
in another
country and would prefer sitting shiva. Why hide the information and
aggravate the
person just not to be the bearer of bad news.
As others have pointed out the situation has changed with the introduction of
modern communication methods and so the relative on the remote island is
not relevant to real life


-- 
Eli Turkel

 
<< According to RYBS and others, the purpose of aveilus is to give a
constructive means of channeling the emotions of mourning.
One might say that there is little machloqes. RYBS might hold that
aveilus is catharsis, and the kibud av va'eim is in not downplaying the
loss.>>

According to this one should certainly tell an avel about his loss so
that he can experience this catharsis. That is why aveilim are so upset
when they are not told and cannot sit shiva with the family

<<Thought experiment - someone knows that a close relative is ill and
unlikely to make it past the next month. He goes to a remote island and
instructs that no one contact him.  He returns 3 months later and gets
the shmua rechoka that his relative had died 2 months prior.  He mourns
as a shmua rechoka.  Has he done anything wrong? anything not
preferred?>>

Her has done absolutely nothing wrong which is the basis of R.
Zilberstein's psak (and the KSA). The question is what if he is not on
an island but in another country and would prefer sitting shiva. Why
hide the information and aggravate the person just not to be the bearer
of bad news.
As others have pointed out the situation has changed with the
introduction of modern communication methods and so the relative on the
remote island is not relevant to real life


--
Eli Turkel
===========================================
Imho these are somewhat interrelated- it's not just R'YBZ-there is an
opinion that the avel greets menachamim with "baruch dayan emrt" because
the purpose is for him to be matzdik the din -assumedly this could be
both halachik and cathartic (actually bound up in one)

Also you didn't comment on "anything not preferred?>>"
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.

In a VIN editorial, I saw the following quote from RASoloveitchik's
"Logic of the Heart, Logic of the Mind":

    From the standpoint of the Torah, there can be no distinction between
    one human being and another on the basis or race or color. Any
    discrimination shown to a human being on account of the color of
    his skin constitutes loathsome barbarity. It must be conceded that
    the Torah recognized a distinction between a Jew and a non-Jew. This
    distinction, however, is not based upon race, origin or color, but
    rather upon k'dushah, the holiness endowed by having been given and
    having accepted the Torah. Furthermore, the distinction between Jew
    and non-Jew does not involve any concept of inferiority but is based
    primarily upon the unique and special burdens that are incumbent
    upon Jews.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

I just realized something else (aside from Yaaqov's berakhah quoted in
the subject line) that connects Levi to Shim'on.

Levi has no cheileq venachalah.

Shim'on failed to conquer their nachalah (eretz Pelishtim at or around
the current Azza strip and north-western Negev), and end up settling
in part of Yehudah's land, either to the south or as an "island" fully
surrounded by Yehudah. And, as I already wondered about (v25n256), they
so lost individual identity within Yehudah, they don't get mentioned as
one of the shevatim at the time of the fall of the malkhus.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 09:29:17PM -0500, Michael Poppers wrote:
: In Avodah Digest V25#381, REMT related:
:>> Each gave a different answer: RYBS mentioned the kibbud av va'eim aspect,
:>> RYH said that the passing of a parent means that we are one more generation
:>> removed from the origin of our mesora, and my father said that one has only
:>> one father and mother, while parents generally have more than one child.

:> Could REMT (or someone else) expand on the difference(s) between the
:> respective answers of his father and of RYBS zichronam livrachah?

Just guessing...

A nafqa minha could be that kibud av va'eim applies to parents who didn't
receive the mesorah from their parents. Or who were not present to pass
it on to the child.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org   tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Helen Keller 

RET asks:
:> According to RYBS and others, the purpose of aveilus is to give a
:> constructive means of channeling the emotions of mourning.
...
: According to this one should certainly tell an avel about his loss so
: that he can experience this catharsis. That is why aveilim are so upset
: when they are not told and cannot sit shiva with the family

1- R' Zilberstein and the KSA needn't hold like RYBS.

2- RYBS deduced lessons from halakhah pesuqah. Not decided halakhah
based on taamei hamitzvos. If one holds like RYZ, one would deduce a
different lesson.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 09:14:15PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
> This is a key point . When we say that "ma'asei avos siman labanim" does
> that mean that Avraham consciencly purchased maarat hamechpala because
> of its effect on future generations (and similar for other events)
> or does it mean that actions of the avot done completely unconsciously
> have some effect on the future (how does that work) or possibly that
> G-d guided the avot into circumstances so that it would affect the future.

Why not take the word "siman" at face value? It doesn't mean some
metaphysical causal connection, so why assume the Ramban would use the
word that way?

Hashem left us lessons in the stories He retold of the avos's deed. Both
in the outcome He provided for the events and in His choice of anecdotes
for us to emulate (and sometimes, to avoid -- eg RSRH on raising Eisav).
So, Hashem gives us the first part of Vayishlach to teach us the moral
strategy in dealing with contemporary Eisav's.

As implied in my first paragraph: No maqor, just taking the words at
face value. But it would explain the Rambam's implication that these are
implicitly suggested behaviors. See his haqdamah to shemos, and peirush
on Bereishis 12:6, 14:1, 32:26, 33:18, 48:22.

In either case, it would seem difficult to understand the Rambam as
saying maaseh avos are descriptive rather than prescriptive messages
about the future.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Micha Berger wrote:
> RET asks:
> :> According to RYBS and others, the purpose of aveilus is to give a
> :> constructive means of channeling the emotions of mourning.
> ...
> : According to this one should certainly tell an avel about his loss so
> : that he can experience this catharsis. That is why aveilim are so upset
> : when they are not told and cannot sit shiva with the family
> 
> 1- R' Zilberstein and the KSA needn't hold like RYBS.
> 
> 2- RYBS deduced lessons from halakhah pesuqah. Not decided halakhah
> based on taamei hamitzvos. If one holds like RYZ, one would deduce a
> different lesson.

The minhag is reconcilable with RYBS's reason too.  The longer the
person has been dead by the time the relative hears about it, the easier
it will be for them to accept it, and the shorter the mourning time they
will need.  We're told that after a year out of this world a person
begins to fade from others' memories, and the fact that Yaacov Avinu
continued to mourn for Yosef for 22 years proved that he was still alive.
It follows that if the person really is dead, and the news can be kept
from someone for a year, the memory will have begun to fade and the news
will hurt less.

Indeed, at least according to RYBS's explanation, this must surely be the
reason for the din that a shmua rechoka doesn't require sitting shiva.  


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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 383
***************************************

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..."